Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa

Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa Rainer Janssen • Dominik Rutz Editors Bioenergy for Sustainable Deve...

Author: Rainer Janssen | Dominik Rutz

231 downloads 2607 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa

Rainer Janssen • Dominik Rutz Editors

Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa

Editors Dr. Rainer Janssen WIP – Renewable Energies Sylvensteinstraße 2 81369 Munich Germany [email protected] www.wip-munich.de

Dipl.-Ing. Dominik Rutz M.Sc. WIP – Renewable Energies Sylvensteinstraße 2 81369 Munich Germany [email protected] www.wip-munich.de

ISBN 978-94-007-2180-7 e-ISBN 978-94-007-2181-4 DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2181-4 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2011941607 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

The book “Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa” is a response to the current global discussion on sustainability of bioenergy which often neglects the needs and perspectives of developing countries. In five parts on “Biomass Production and Use”, “Biomass Technologies and Markets”, “Biomass Policies”, “Sustainability of Biomass Production and Use”, and “Financing and Socio-Economic Issues” the book addresses in 31 chapters bioenergy development opportunities for Africa and related risks. Contributions to this book are based on the experience of selected authors from Africa, Europe, and other continents, including researchers, investors, policy makers and other stakeholders such as representatives from NGOs. This publication builds upon the results of the “COMPETE Bioenergy Competence Platform for Africa” which was supported by the European Commission in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research from January 2007 to December 2009.

v

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank all authors that contributed to this book on Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa as well as all partners of the COMPETE Bioenergy Competence Platform for Africa, which was supported by the European Commission in the Sixth Framework Programme for Research from 2007 to 2009. We would also like to thank our colleagues at WIP Renewable Energies for their continuous support of our activities within the current global discussion about the sustainability of bioenergy in Africa.

vii

Contents

Part I 1

2

3

4

5

Keynote Introduction: Traditional and Improved Use of Biomass for Energy in Africa ..................................................... Edward M.W. Smeets, Francis X. Johnson, and Grant Ballard-Tremeer

3

Biomass Potential in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions in Botswana ............................................................................... Mogodisheng B.M. Sekhwela and Donald L. Kgathi

13

Jatropha: A Promising Crop for Africa’s Biofuel Production?............................................................ Janske van Eijck, Edward M.W. Smeets and André P.C. Faaij

27

Small-Scale Production of Jatropha in Zambia and its Implications for Rural Development and National Biofuel Policies ................................................................. Thomson Sinkala and Francis X. Johnson Economic Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum in Biofuel Production as a Multi-purpose Crop: The Case of Zambia................ Clarietta Chagwiza and Gavin Fraser

Part II 6

7

Biomass Production and Use

41

53

Biomass Technologies and Markets

Keynote Introduction: Biomass Technologies and Markets in Africa ............................................................................ Dominik Rutz and Rainer Janssen

63

Sustainable Charcoal and Firewood Production and Use in Africa................................................................. Estomih N. Sawe

75

ix

x

Contents

8

9

Bioethanol Potential and Production in Africa: Sweet Sorghum as a Complementary Feedstock ................................. Kalaluka Munyinda, Francis Davison Yamba, and Hartley Walimwipi Biodiesel Production in Africa ............................................................... Hartley Walimwipi, Francis Davison Yamba, Manfred Wörgetter, Josef Rathbauer, and Dina Bacovsky

81

93

10

Biogas Production in Africa ................................................................... 103 Greg Austin and Glynn Morris

11

New Conversion Technologies for Liquid Biofuels Production in Africa................................................................. 117 Bothwell Batidzirai, Edward M.W. Smeets, and André P.C. Faaij

12

Modern Use of Solid Biomass in Africa: Prospects for Utilization of Agro-Waste Resources in Nigeria............................. 131 Kemjika Benaiah Ajoku

13

International Trade of Biofuels: Current Trends and the Potential Role of Africa............................................................. 147 Arnaldo Walter and Anna Segerstedt

Part III

Biomass Policies

14

Keynote Introduction: Overview on Bioenergy Policies in Africa .............................................................. 165 Rainer Janssen and Dominik Rutz

15

Biofuel Policies in Tanzania.................................................................... 183 Sarah Mohamed, Gavin Fraser, and Estomih N. Sawe

16

Biofuel Policy in South Africa: A Critical Analysis ............................. 191 Thapelo Letete and Harro von Blottnitz

17

Promoting Biofuels in West Africa: An Engine for Development ................................................................... 201 Mamadou Dianka

18

Strategies for a Sustainable Pan-African Biofuels Policy.................... 209 Charles B.L. Jumbe and Michael Madjera

Part IV 19

Sustainability of Biomass Production and Use

Keynote Introduction: Sustainability Considerations for Biofuels Production in Africa ................................. Rocio A. Diaz-Chavez and Jeremy Woods

223

Contents

xi

20

Environmental Impacts of Biofuel Production in Africa .................... 237 Kingiri Senelwa, Lazare Etiégni, Odipo Osano, Kirongo Balozi, and Moses Imo

21

Potential Impacts of Biofuel Development on Biodiversity in Chobe District, Botswana ........................................ 247 Donald L. Kgathi, Barbara N. Ngwenya, and Mogodisheng B.M. Sekhwela

22

Water Implications of Biofuel Development in Semi-Arid Sub-Saharan Africa: Case Studies of Four Countries ............................................................. 261 Donald L. Kgathi, Isaac Mazonde, and Michael Murray-Hudson

23

Implications of Climate Change on Sustainable Biofuel Production in Africa ........................................ 281 Sumedha Malaviya and Nijavalli H. Ravindranath

24

Bioenergy and Sustainable Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa .................................................................. 299 Kirsten Ulsrud

Part V

Financing and Socio-Economic Issues

25

Keynote Introduction: Socio-Economic Impacts of Different Scales of Biofuel Production in Africa ............................. 311 Dominik Rutz and Rainer Janssen

26

Social Impacts of Biofuel Production in Africa .................................... 323 Stanford Mwakasonda and Francesca Farioli

27

Small-Scale Bioenergy Initiatives: Lessons from Case Studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa ........................ 335 Steven Hunt, Thalia Konaris, Raffaella Bellanca, and Grant Ballard-Tremeer

28

Gender Issues of Biomass Production and Use in Africa .................... 345 Francesca Farioli and Touria Dafrallah

29

Financing of Biofuel Projects in Africa ................................................. 363 Michael Hofmann, Glynn Morris, Grant Ballard-Tremeer, and Kaysara Khatun

30

Economics of Modern and Traditional Bioenergy in African Households: Consumer Choices for Cook Stoves .............. 375 Francis X. Johnson and Takeshi Takama

xii

Contents

Part VI 31

Summary and Conclusion

Opportunities and Risks of Bioenergy in Africa .................................. 391 Dominik Rutz and Rainer Janssen

Index ................................................................................................................. 401

Editors’ Biography

Rainer Janssen graduated in Physics (Dr. rer.nat.) at the Technical University of Munich, Walter Schottky Institute, Germany and performed studies at the University of Toronto, Canada. He is Head of the Biomass Department at WIP Renewable Energies and Senior Expert in the Biomass field. He is involved in the production, distribution and market penetration of bioenergy (solid biomass, biogas) and biofuels for transport (e.g. bioethanol, biodiesel, vegetable oil) with special emphasis on the development of supportive framework conditions and policy regulations in the EU, Latin America, Africa and other emerging economies. Since 2000, Dr. Janssen is involved in the coordination of a variety of international and European projects. Recent projects include the FP7 project Global-Bio-Pact focussing on socio-economic impacts of biomass and bioproducts on a global level, the FP7 project BioTop on biofuels assessment on technical opportunities and research needs for Latin America, and the international competence platform COMPETE (FP6) on the sustainable use of energy crops and agro-forestry systems in Africa. In recent years, Dr. Janssen was invited expert in the field of bioenergy for the European Commission (DG RTD, DG ENER), IEA (International Energy Agency) Bioenergy, and the GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit). Since 2009, Dr. Janssen is member of working group 4 on “Sustainability” of the European Biofuels Technology Platform and member of working group 4 on “Market & Policies Development” within the Biomass Panel of the European Technology Platform on Renewable Heating and Cooling. Dominik Rutz graduated in Environmental Science (Dipl.-Ing.) and Consumer Science (M.Sc.) at the Technical University of Munich, Germany, and the Institut National d’Horticulture, France. He is Senior Expert at WIP Renewable Energies and his main field of experience includes market support and international cooperation on bioenergy in developing countries and emerging economies worldwide. Mr. Rutz coordinated the European Union supported projects BioTop (Biofuels Assessment on Technical Opportunities and Research Needs for Latin America), Global-Bio-Pact (Global Assessment of Biomass and Bioproduct Impacts on Socio-economics and Sustainability), BiG>East (Biogas for Eastern Europe) and xiii

xiv

Editors’ Biography

UrbanBiogas (Urban Waste for Biogas Production). He is author of three handbooks on biogas, liquid biofuels, and biomass heating systems, and furthermore invited expert and lecturer e.g. for a course on second generation biofuels at UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) and REMBIO (Red Mexicana de Bioenergía). While travelling to more than 40 countries worldwide and stimulated by his diploma thesis on vegetation ecology in the Okavango Delta in Botswana in 2004, his main fascination is dedicated to the beauty of nature and cultural spirit of the African continent. Nature conservation on the one hand and social equity on the other hand are the main drivers for his engagement in decentralised renewable energy supply. Thereby his interest goes far beyond the bioenergy field, towards a holistic and sustainable energy system.

Contributors

Greg Austin AGAMA Energy, The Green Building, 9b Bell Crescent Close, Westlake Business Park, 7945 Westlake, South Africa, [email protected] Dina Bacovsky BIOENERGY 2020+, Gewerbepark Haag 3, 3250 WieselburgLand, Austria, [email protected] Grant Ballard-Tremeer Eco Ltd, P.O. Box 900, BR1 9FF London, Bromley, UK, [email protected] Kirongo Balozi Department of Forestry & Wood Science, Chepkoilel University College, Moi University, P.O. Box 1125, Eldoret 30100, Kenya, balozibk@hotmail. com Bothwell Batidzirai Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands, [email protected] Raffaella Bellanca Eco Ltd, P.O. Box 900, London, Bromley BR1 9FF, UK, [email protected] Kemjika Benaiah Ajoku Raw Materials Research and Development Council, Abuja, Nigeria, [email protected] Harro von Blottnitz Chemical Engineering Department, University of Cape Town, P. Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa, [email protected] Clarietta Chagwiza University of Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice 5700, South Africa, [email protected] Touria Dafrallah Environnement et Développement du Tiers Monde (ENDA TM), 54, rue Carnot, Dakar BP 3370, Senegal, [email protected] Mamadou Dianka Union Monétaire et Economique Ouest Africaine (UEMOA), BP 543 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, [email protected]

xv

xvi

Contributors

Rocio A. Diaz-Chavez Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road 313A, Mech Eng Bld., South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK, [email protected] Janske van Eijck Department of Science, Technology and Society, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands, [email protected] Lazare Etiégni Department of Forestry & Wood Science, Chepkoilel University College, Moi University, P.O. Box 1125, Eldoret 30100, Kenya, [email protected] André P.C. Faaij Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands, [email protected] Francesca Farioli Interuniversity Research Centre on Sustainable Development, (CIRPS)-SAPIENZA Università di Roma, Piazza San Pietro in Vincoli 10, 00184, Rome, Italy, [email protected] Gavin Fraser Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa, [email protected] Michael Hofmann Camco, 172 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7NS, UK, [email protected] Steven Hunt The Schumacher Centre for Technology & Development, Practical Action Consulting, Bourton on Dunsmore, Rugby CV23 9QZ, United Kingdom, [email protected] Moses Imo Department of Forestry & Wood Science, Chepkoilel University College, Moi University, P.O. Box 1125, Eldoret 30100, Kenya, [email protected] Rainer Janssen WIP Renewable Energies, Sylvensteinstr. 2, 81369 Munich, Germany, [email protected] Francis X. Johnson Stockholm Environment Institute, Kräftriket 2B SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, [email protected] Charles B.L. Jumbe Centre for Agricultural Research & Development, Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi, [email protected] Donald L. Kgathi Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Shorobe Road, Matlapana, Maun, Botswana, [email protected] Kaysara Khatun Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Alameda Urquijo 4, 4° – 1a, Bilbao 48008, Spain, [email protected] Thalia Konaris Eco Ltd, P.O. Box 900, London, Bromley BR1 9FF, UK, info@ ecoharmony.com Thapelo Letete Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town, P. Bag X3, Rondebosch, 7701 South Africa, [email protected]

Contributors

xvii

Michael Madjera Evangelical Church in Middle Germany, P.O. Box 1424, 39004 Magdeburg, Germany, [email protected] Sumedha Malaviya Center for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 012, India, [email protected] Isaac Mazonde Office of Research and Development, University of Botswana, 4775 Notwane Rd, Gaborone, Botswana, [email protected] Sarah Mohamed Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa, [email protected] Glynn Morris AGAMA Energy, The Green Building, 9b Bell Crescent Close, Westlake Business Park, Westlake 7945, South Africa, [email protected] Kalaluka Munyinda Centre for Energy Environment and Engineering Zambia (CEEEZ), 176 Parirenyatwa Road, Suite B, Private Bag E721, Lusaka, Zambia, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Michael Murray-Hudson Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Shorobe Road, Matlapana, Maun, Botswana, [email protected] Stanford Mwakasonda Engen Petroleum Ltd, Engen Court, Thibault Square, P.O. Box 35, Cape Town 8000, South Africa, [email protected] Barbara N. Ngwenya Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Shorobe Road, Matlapana, Maun, Botswana, [email protected] Odipo Osano School of Environmental Studies, Moi University, P.O. Box 3900, Eldoret 30100, Kenya, [email protected] Josef Rathbauer Francisco Josephinum – Federal Secondary School and Research Institute for Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Food Technology, BLT – Biomass, Logistics, Technology, Rottenhauserstrasse 1, Wieselburg, AT 3250, Austria, [email protected] Nijavalli H. Ravindranath Center for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science, Malleshwaram, Bangalore 560 012, India, [email protected] Dominik Rutz WIP Renewable Energies, Sylvensteinstr. 2, 81369 Munich, Germany, [email protected] Estomih N. Sawe TaTEDO, Mpakani A, Plot No. KJM/MPA/98, Near Institute of Social Works, Kijitonyama, P.O. Box 32794, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, energy@ tatedo.org; [email protected] Anna Segerstedt Institut für Umweltökonomik und Welthandel, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Königsworther Platz 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany, segerstedt@iuw. uni-hannover.de Mogodisheng B.M. Sekhwela Office of Research and Development, University of Botswana, 4775 Notwane Rd. Gaborone, Botswana, [email protected]

xviii

Contributors

Kingiri Senelwa Department of Forestry & Wood Science, Chepkoilel University College, Moi University, P.O. Box 1125, Eldoret 30100, Kenya, ksenelwas@yahoo. co.uk Thomson Sinkala Thomro Biofuels, Lusaka, Zambia, tsinkala@thomro-zambia. com Edward M.W. Smeets Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands, [email protected] Department of Science, Technology and Society, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 23584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands, [email protected] Takeshi Takama Japanese International Development Agency, Jl. Angkasa I No. 2, Kemayoran, Jakarta Pusat 10720, Indonesia, [email protected] Kirsten Ulsrud Department of sociology and human geography, University of Oslo, Molkte Moes vei 31, P.O. Box 1096, Blindern 0317, Oslo, Norway, kirsten. [email protected] Hartley Walimwipi Centre for Energy, Environment and Engineering Zambia, Parirenyatwa road, 176, Private Bag E 721, Lusaka, Zambia, hartleykabunda@ yahoo.co.uk; [email protected] Arnaldo Walter University of Campinas (Unicamp) and Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory (CTBE), Mendeleyev, 200, Campinas 13083-860, Brazil, [email protected] Jeremy Woods Porter Institute, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road 313A Mech Eng Bld South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK, [email protected] Manfred Wörgetter Francisco Josephinum - Federal Secondary School and Research Institute for Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Food Technology, BLT – Biomass, Logistics, Technology, Rottenhauserstrasse 1, Wieselburg, AT 3250, Austria, [email protected] Francis Davison Yamba Centre for Energy Environment and Engineering Zambia (CEEEZ), 176 Parirenyatwa Road, Suite B, Private Bag E721, Lusaka, Zambia, [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Abbreviations

ABPP ABREF AIDS ANADEB ARI ASC AUC Bio-SNG BtL CAFTA CAG CAPEX CASP CBI CDM CEF CER CFB CH4 CHP CO CO2 COMPETE DCA DFID DME DNA DRI EC

Africa Biogas Partnership Program African Biofuels Renewable Energy Fund Acquired immune deficiency syndrome National Agency for the Development of Biofuels Acute respiratory infections Alternative specific constant African Union Commission (www.africa-union.org) Synthetic natural gas Biomass-to-Liquid Central America free trade agreement Consortium advisory group Capital expenditure Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (www.nda.agric.za/docs/CASP/casp.htm) Caribbean Basin Initiative Clean development mechanism Central Energy Fund (www.cef.org.za) Carbon emission reductions Circulation fluidised bed Methane Combined heat and power Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Competence Platform for Bioenergy in Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems in Africa (www.compete-bioafrica.net) Discrete choice analysis UK Department for International Development (www.dfid.gov.uk) Dimethylether Designated national authorities Drought risk index European Commission (www.ec.europa.eu) xix

xx

ECOWAS EDC EF ENERGIA ENSO ESDA ESIA ESMAP ESSP EU FAEE FAME FANR FAO FCFA FSC FT GBEP GCM GDP GHG GIZ GTZ GWC GWP HHEA HHV HIV ICRISAT IDC IEA IFAD IFEU IIED ILUC IPCC IPP IRR

Abbreviations

Economic Community of West African States (www.ecowas.int) Energy Development Corporation (www.cef.org.za) Entrained flow International Network on Gender and Sustainable Energy (www.energia.org) El Niño Southern Oscillation Energy for Sustainable Development Africa (www.esda.co.ke) Environmental and social impact assessment Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme Earth System Science Partnership (www.essp.org) European Union (www.europa.eu) Fatty acid ethyl ester Fatty acid methyl ester Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Agency (www.fanrpan.org) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (www.fao.org) Franc des Colonies Françaises d’Afrique (currency in West Africa) Forest Stewardship Council (www.fsc.org) Fischer-Tropsch Global Bioenergy Partnership (www.globalbioenergy.org) General circulation models Gross domestic product Greenhouse gases Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for International Cooperation) (www.giz.de) Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Cooperation) (now GIZ) (www.giz.de) Global warming commitment Global warming potential Household energy economic analysis Higher heating value Human immunodeficiency virus International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (www.icrisat.org) South Africa’s Industrial Development Corporation (www.idc.co.za) International Energy Agency (www.iea.org) International Fund for Agricultural Development (www.ifad.org) Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg (www.ifeu.de) International Institute for Environment and Development (www.iied.org) Indirect land use change Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) Independent power producer Internal rate of return

Abbreviations

ISCC IUCN KBDA LCA LDC LPG MAFISA MAR MDGs MFP MTBE MWTP N2O NCAR NCEP NEB NERSA NGO NMHC NOx OECD OMVG OMVS OPEC PANPP PDSI PIC PISCES PM PPA PPO ProBEC R&D REC RED

REFIT REN21 RET

xxi

International Sustainability and Carbon Certification System (www.iscc-system.org) International Union for Conservation of Nature (www.iucn.org) Kenya Biodiesel Association Life cycle assessment Least developed country Liquefied petroleum gas Micro Agricultural Financial Industrial Scheme of South Africa Mean annual rainfall Millennium Development Goals (www.un.org/millenniumgoals) Multifunctional platform Methyl tertiary butyl ether Marginal willingness to pay Nitrous oxide National Center for Atmospheric Research (www.ncar.ucar.edu) National Centers for Environmental Research (www.epa.gov/ncer) Net energy balance National Energy Regulator of South Africa (www.nersa.org.za) Non governmental organisation Non-methane hydrocarbons Nitrogen oxides Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (www.oecd.org) Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Gambie Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du fleuve Sénégal Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (www.opec.org) Pays Africains Non-Producteurs de Pétrole Palmer Drought Severity Index Products of incomplete combustion Policy Innovation Systems for Clean Energy Security (www.pisces.or.ke) Particulate matter Power purchase agreement Pure plant oil Programme for Biomass Energy Conservation (www.probec.org) Research and development Renewable energy certificates Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC) South Africa Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff Programme Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (www.ren21.net) Renewable energy technology

xxii

RSB RSPO RTD RTRS SADC SANEDI SEI SHS SIDA SNG SNV SODEGO SOx SRES SRF SVO SWOT TaTEDO TJ TPES UEMOA UN UNEP UNICEF UNIDO UNFCCC VEETC VER WAM WARDA WBGU

WEO WHO WIP WMO WWW

Abbreviations

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (www.rsb.epfl.ch) Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (www.rspo.org) Research and technical development Round Table on Responsible Soy (www.responsiblesoy.org) Southern Africa Development Community (www.sadc.int) South African National Energy Development Institute (www.saneri.org.za) Stockholm Environment Institute (www.sei-international.org) Solar home systems Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (www.sida.se) Synthetic natural gas Netherlands Development Organisation (www.snvworld.org) Solidary and community development Sulphur oxides Special report on emissions scenarios Short rotation forest Straight vegetable oil SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) Tanzanian Traditional Energy Development Organisation (www.tatedo.org) Tera joule Total primary energy supply Union Économique et Monétaire Ouest-Africaine (www.uemoa.int) DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/index.html) United Nations Environment Programme (www.unep.org) United Nations Children’s Fund (www.unicef.org) United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (www.unido.org) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (www.unfccc.int) Volumetric ethanol excise tax credit Verified emission reduction West African monsoon West Africa Rice Development Association (http://www.warda.cgiar.org/) Wissenschaftliche Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (www.wbgu.de) World Energy Outlook (www.worldenergyoutlook.org) World Health Organisation (www.who.int) Wirtschaft und Infrastruktur GmbH & Planungs Co KG (WIP Renewable Energies) (www.wip-munich.de) World Meteorological Organisation (www.wmo.int) World weather watch (stations)

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2

A traditional three stone stove (left) and a charcoal stove (right) ............................................................ Schematic representation of the fuel ladder ................................... Map of sites with different woody plant species identified as potential bioenergy species in Botswana ................... Poles of D. Cinerea used in arable fields fencing in the Kweneng District, Botswana...................................

6 7 17 19

Harvest of sweet sorghum at different growth stages .................... Accumulation of sugar in different varieties of sweet sorghum at UNZA Farm .................................................. Optimum harvest time of sweet sorghum ...................................... Performance of sweet sorghum varieties on different soil types ......................................................

87

Fig. 9.1

Biodiesel production pathways ......................................................

95

Fig. 10.1 Fig. 10.2 Fig. 10.3 Fig. 10.4

Schematic of a flexible balloon digester ........................................ Schematic of a floating drum digester ........................................... Schematic of a fixed dome digester ............................................... Generalised integrated biogas model .............................................

107 108 109 110

Fig. 11.1

Comparison of life cycle GHG emissions for biofuels and petroleum fuels .................................................... Overview of second generation biofuel production pathways .......................................................... Cost supply curve of BtL diesel under four IPCC SRES scenarios .................................................. Projected technical bioenergy production potential in 2050 (EJ yr -1) assuming four different agricultural management systems (the rightmost bar represents a very high level of agricultural technology) .................................

Fig. 8.3 Fig. 8.4

Fig. 11.2 Fig. 11.3 Fig. 11.4

87 88 89

119 122 124

125 xxiii

xxiv

Fig. 11.5 Fig. 11.6 Fig. 12.1 Fig. 12.2 Fig. 12.3 Fig. 13.1 Fig. 13.2

Fig. 13.3

Fig. 13.4 Fig. 13.5

List of Figures

Regional biomass annual production potential in Mozambique (in PJ HHV projected for 2015)........................... 127 Range of costs for BtL delivered at Rotterdam Harbour ............... 128 Production of rice by smallholder farmers in Nigeria (in thousand metric tons) .............................................. 136 Intensities of saw milling and tree cutting ..................................... 141 Wood and non wood processing states in Nigeria ......................... 142 Evolution of ethanol exports by Brazil from 2004 to 2010 (estimates for 2010) ........................................ Ethanol exports from Brazil to EU Member States (SW Sweden, NL The Netherlands) from 2003 to 2010 (estimates for 2010) ........................................ Ethanol exports from Brazil to CBI and CAFTA countries and from these countries to US – 2004–2009 ........................................................................ Ethanol production in US and the share of ethanol imports regarding the domestic production – 2003–2009 ............. Exports of fuel ethanol by Brazil from January 2004 to November 2010 ..........................................................................

153

153

154 154 157

Fig. 14.1

The Addis Ababa declaration on sustainable biofuels development in Africa .................................................................... 179

Fig. 15.1

Energy sources in Tanzania............................................................ 184

Fig. 21.1 Fig. 21.2

Map of Chobe district, Botswana................................................... 251 Stakeholder perceptions on suitability of biofuel feedstocks in Botswana ................................................. 253

Fig. 22.1 Fig. 22.2 Fig. 22.3

Map of semi-arid areas in Botswana .............................................. Map of semi-arid areas in Zambia ................................................. Biofuel initiatives in Tanzania; Notes: L large-scale biofuel, M medium scale, S small-scale, MC micro scale ....................................................... Potential for growing jatropha curcas in southern Mali .................

Fig. 22.4 Fig. 23.1 Fig. 23.2

269 271

273 276

Drought events per country from 1970 to 2004 within Sub-Saharan Africa ............................................................. 286 Temperature and rainfall projections for Africa; change from 1980–1999 to 2080–2099 for IPCC scenario A1B, averaged over 21 atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (annual average (left), December–February (centre), June–August (right)) ...................................................................... 287

List of Figures

xxv

Fig. 27.1 Fig. 27.2

PISCES bioenergy pathways diagram ........................................... 337 Typical market map (From the Senegal chardust briquett case study) .......................................................... 339

Fig. 28.1

Share of biomass in the ECOWAS countries energy balance ................................................................ 350

Fig. 29.1

Relative shares of feedstock costs, operational expenditures (Opex) and capital expenditures (Capex) in total biofuel cost price for different biofuels................ 367 Financing options at various clean energy project development stages ........................................................................ 368 Typical energy service supply chains for cooked meals ................ 370

Fig. 29.2 Fig. 29.3 Fig. 30.1

Fig. 30.2

Fig. 30.3

Fig. 30.4 Fig. 30.5 Fig. 30.6

Indifference curves of cooking stove choice. Stove A and Stove B on the I2 curve give the equal satisfaction, i.e. the consumer is indifferent between the two options. Moreover, any stove on the I3 is better than any stove on I2 for the consumer because those stoves have less smoke AND lower price ...................................... Stochastic (discrete choice) model for ethanol vs. firewood. The model, as depicted by the curve, facilitates the inclusion of a random component so as to describe the actual choices (x’s) in an internally consistent manner in accordance with the theory .......................... Example of stated preference survey card used in Ethiopia case study. The choice experiment in the stated preference survey is such that each respondent views the card and chooses between the two options based on the specified attributes. Each choice requires a separate card so that pair wise comparisons between the stove/fuel options are made ...................................................... MWTP of soft attributes between income groups in Ethiopia ............................................................. MWTP of soft attributes between income groups in Tanzania ............................................................ Four categories of clean cook stove determinants with examples .................................................

379

379

380 384 384 385

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 1.2

Table 1.3

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3

Table 2.4 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1


Estimated use of biomass for cooking in various world regions (Mm3)..................................................... Global warming commitment (grams of carbon as CO2 per MJ of delivered energy) of various cooking fuels ................................................................ Costs, efficiencies and lifetimes of various cooking stoves and the related cost of energy, in terms of utilized heat......................................... Examples of woody bush encroachment species as potential bioenergy source in Botswana ................................... Regeneration through coppice of potential bioenergy woody plant invaders in Botswana ............................... Indicative biomass production rates of potential bioenergy woody plant species in their natural growth environment (fresh weight)....................... Oil plant species found in Botswana ............................................. Labour requirements for jatropha cultivation and harvesting.............................................................. Prices paid for jatropha seeds reported by various studies .......................................................................... National price disparities at fuel pumps across different regions of Zambia (1 US$ = K5000, May 2010) .......................................................... Comparison of population, resources, and GDP for selected countries ..................................................... Biofuels feedstock assessment/ranking in Zambia........................ Fresh stem and grain yields of selected sweet sorghum varieties ..............................................

4

7

8 18 19

19 21 31 32

43 44 45 57

xxvii

xxviii

Table 5.2 Table 6.1

Table 8.1

List of Tables

Gross margin for high yielding sweet sorghum varieties .........................................................................

58

Traditional and potential bioenergy options for biomass feedstock, technologies and energy needs in Africa ..........................................................

65

Bioethanol potential in selected African countries for different feedstock types in PJ ............................... Ethanol production in selected African countries ....................... Potential ethanol markets in southern African countries based on E5 and E10 (million litres) ........................... Comparison of sugarcane, sugarbeet and sweet sorghum characteristics .............................................. Yield increase of sweet sorghum varieties on Phaeozems and Lixisols compared to Ferralsols and Vertisols (kg/ha) .................................................................... Sweet sorghum production under supplementary irrigation conditions with double cropping ...................................................................

90

Table 9.1

Oil crops distribution in Africa ....................................................

99

Table 10.1

Domestic biogas installations in selected countries .................... 112

Table 12.1 Table 12.2

World paddy rice and potential rice husk production .................. Distribution of rice mill clusters and quantity of residues ............................................................... Energy potential of major rice processing clusters in Nigeria ...................................................... Demand, supply and balance of wood types in Nigeria (2007–2010) (in thousand m³ roundwood volume) ..................................................................... Energy potential of wastes generated by clusters ........................


Table 8.6



Table 13.3

Table 13.4

Biofuels production from 2000 to 2009 in billion litres (BL) ............................................... Main producers of fuel ethanol and biodiesel and growth of the production from 2005 to 2009 in most important producer countries .......................................... Trade figures of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) in 2009 – net result is the difference between imports and exports ..................................................................... Africas main indicators (2008) and its comparison in the world; the second comparison was done excluding South Africa ................................................

83 84 85 86

89

137 137 138

142 143 149

150

151

155

List of Tables

Table 17.1 Table 17.2 Table 17.3 Table 19.1 Table 19.2

xxix

Prices per MJ of ethanol and household fuels ............................. 204 Price per MJ of anhydrous ethanol, biodiesel and fossil fuels ............................................................. 204 Potential projects in the UEMOA countries ................................ 205 Principles for sustainability assessment for bioenergy initiatives ............................................ 228 Assessment of four case studies .................................................. 233

Table 21.1

Comparison of efficiencies and input requirement for energy crops ....................................................... 255

Table 22.1

Zambezi basin: irrigation potential, water requirements and areas under irrigation ............................ 267 Irrigation potential in the different Zambezi sub-basins in Zambia .................................................... 271 Implications of bioethanol production on water resources per country .................................................... 274



Table 23.5

Land requirements for biofuel production globally..................... Percentage of the arid and semi-arid regions in eight Sub-Saharan African countries available and suitable for biofuel crop production ..................................... Potential rainfall, land and cultivation practices for bioenergy crops ....................................................... Areas suitable for sugarcane production, given in 1,000 ha as a percentage of land area of the country ....................................................................... Potential adaptation strategies to climate change for biofuels .....................................................

283

290 290

291 294

Table 27.1

Balance of rights, responsibilities and revenues of market actors ..................................................... 339

Table 28.1

Energy, MDGs and gender linkages ............................................ 347

Table 30.1

Summary of product specific and socio-economic attributes ..................................................... 381 General parameters derived from the BIOGEME model ......................................................... 383 Trade-off between attributes (MWTP) based on stove price unit ............................................................. 383


Part I

Biomass Production and Use

Chapter 1

Keynote Introduction: Traditional and Improved Use of Biomass for Energy in Africa Edward Smeets, Francis X. Johnson, and Grant Ballard-Tremeer

Abstract Traditional biomass energy systems are widely used in Africa, mainly because of the low cost and lack of available alternatives in rural areas. Projections indicate that the (relative) contribution of traditional bioenergy will decrease, but that the total use of traditional biomass energy systems will increase during the coming decades. The efficiencies of wood-fuel (firewood and charcoal) energy systems are usually low and the use of these systems has serious negative consequences, such as indoor air pollution and related health effects, deforestation and the labour intensive and sometimes dangerous process of firewood collection. Improvements in stoves, charcoal production efficiency and switching fuels can increase the efficiency by several tens of percent points and thereby reduce the demand for labour for the collection of firewood and the costs. Other advantages of improved traditional bioenergy systems are reduced greenhouse gas emissions, reduced indoor air pollution and reduced deforestation. Various initiatives have been successful in implementing the use of improved household stoves, although the results suggest that the success of improved traditional biomass systems depends on the local conditions and socio-economic impacts of these systems.

E. Smeets (*) Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 6, 3584 CD, Utrecht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] F.X. Johnson Stockholm Environment Institute, Kräftriket 2B, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] G. Ballard-Tremeer Eco Ltd, P.O. Box 900, BR1 9FF Bromley, London, UK e-mail: [email protected]

R. Janssen and D. Rutz (eds.), Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2181-4_1, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

3

4

E. Smeets et al.

Keywords Wood-fuel • Fuel-wood • Firewood • Charcoal • Traditional energy systems • Fuel-wood stoves • Charcoal kilns • Efficiency • Indoor air pollution • Black carbon • Incomplete combustion • Energy ladder • Dedicated woody energy • LPG • Kerosene • Biogas • Ethanol • Ethanol-gelfuel

1.1

Introduction

Biomass currently accounts for about 10% of the total global energy supply, making it by far the most important renewable energy source (IPCC 2007; IEA 2008; IEA 2009). Most of this biomass (70–80%) consists of wood, agricultural residues and urban waste and is used in traditional stoves for cooking and heating (IPCC 2007). Biomass sources for traditional bioenergy systems include fuel-wood and charcoal (wood-fuels), animal dung and crop residues. In many countries, fuel-wood accounts for 80–100% of biomass use, although the percentage is lower in east South-East Asia, where there is significant use of agricultural residues and/or dung (Table 1.1). Typical devices used in households are the three-stone fire-place, or simple cooking enclosures. Traditional charcoal production is typically carried out with a simple ‘earth mound kiln’, and charcoal burned in simple braziers. Apart from the household sector, biomass is also used by small and medium-sized enterprises in a variety of traditional commercial applications as well as small and medium enterprises of developing countries. Since charcoal and fuel-wood account for more than 90% of traditional biomass in Sub-Saharan Africa, the focus in this chapter is especially on fuel-wood and charcoal. Traditional bioenergy systems have several important disadvantages. First, the quality of the energy services provided is extremely low in comparison to the energy and economic expenditure. The efficiencies of such systems are often low (7–20%) and they provide only low grade heat that cannot be easily regulated. Large volumes of biomass are needed to meet the daily energy demand. Women and children are mostly responsible for the labour intensive collection of fuel-wood, which can take up to 8 h per day (World Bank 2008). Further, traditional bioenergy systems typically have no chimneys and, combined with poor ventilation, lead to high levels of indoor Table 1.1 Estimated use of biomass for cooking in various world regions (Mm3) Fuel-wood Crop residues Dung North America 41 0 0 Latin America 80 0 0 Africa 371 52 0 Europe 147 0 0 South Asia 344 76 75 East Asia 193 323 0 South-East Asia 164 43 0 Oceania 10 0 0 Global total 1,351 495 75 Source: Fernandes et al. (2007)

Charcoal 0 16 14 0 3 0 6 0 39

1

Keynote Introduction: Traditional and Improved Use of Biomass for Energy...

5

air pollution. In poorly ventilated dwellings, indoor smoke can exceed acceptable levels for small particles in outdoor air by 100-fold. Exposure is particularly high amongst women and children, who spend the most time near the domestic hearth. Every year, indoor air pollution in Sub-Saharan Africa is responsible for the death of an estimated 350,000 children due to lower respiratory infections and 34,000 adult women due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Bailis et al. 2005). Improving the quality of energy supply in Africa is central to sustainable development and poverty reduction efforts. At this moment, some 583 million people, or 76% of the population, in Sub-Saharan Africa depend solely upon traditional bioenergy (IEA 2002). The contribution of traditional bioenergy to the energy supply is projected to decrease during the coming decades. But the total number of people in Africa that will rely on traditional biomass for cooking and heating is expected to increase from 583 million in 2002 to 823 million (IEA 2002). Access to modern energy sources, such as natural gas and electricity, allows people to generate income and improve their living conditions. So even modest improvements in the efficiency of traditional energy systems and in access to modern energy services can have a positive impact on the livelihoods of people. In this section the possibilities, constraints and impacts of improving traditional bioenergy systems are discussed as a way to increase the efficiency of the use of scarce resources, to combat energy poverty and to contribute to rural development.

1.2 1.2.1

Conventional Traditional Bioenergy Systems Firewood and Charcoal

The percentage of the population in rural areas relying on firewood as the primary source of energy is above 85% in most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (UNDP 2009). The contribution of firewood to the energy supply is relatively constant in time, due to the low costs and the lack of available alternatives. In urban regions charcoal is the main source of energy. In many respects, charcoal is more suitable for household use compared to firewood. Charcoal emits fewer pollutants, it has higher energy content, and it is lighter and therefore easier to transport. Because of its advantages over firewood, there have been a number of efforts to promote its use in household cooking. The use of charcoal in Africa is projected to increase by more than 50% between 2010 and 2030 (IEA 2002), as a result of rapid urbanization and population growth. The traditional three-stone stove is widely used in Sub-Saharan Africa (Fig. 1.1). An important disadvantage of this type of stove is the relative low efficiency of about 14% (Table 1.3). Charcoal is typically used in traditional metal stoves (Fig. 1.1), which have slightly higher end-use efficiencies of 15–18% (Malimbwi and Zahabu 2007). Nevertheless, due to the loss of energy during charcoal production about five times the amount of wood is needed when cooking on charcoal as compared to firewood when assuming a charcoal kiln efficiency of 15% (Table 1.3).

6

E. Smeets et al.

Fig. 1.1 A traditional three stone stove (left) and a charcoal stove (right) (Source: Ballard-Treemer)

1.2.2

Impacts of Conventional Traditional Bioenergy Systems

The use of traditional bioenergy systems has several serious negative socio-economic and environmental impacts. Traditional bioenergy systems lead to high greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the incomplete combustion of wood-fuels, 10–20% of the carbon released is in the form of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO) and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). These compounds are referred to as products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and have much higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide (Smith et al. 2000). The combined impact of the five emissions is called the Global Warming Commitment (GWC) (see Table 1.2). This table also shows that the GWC of traditional bioenergy applications depend heavily on the source of the biomass. With renewable harvesting of biomass, carbon dioxide (CO2) missions are completely recycled and thus there is no net increase in GWC from CO2. For PICs, renewable harvesting only affects the GWC by eliminating the portion of the global warming potential of each gas owing to its eventual conversion to CO2 in the atmosphere. In non renewable harvesting, however, all the carbon in biomass is a net addition to the atmosphere, as for fossil fuels. Further, Table 1.2 shows that traditional systems have very high emissions, compared to improved traditional systems, but also that improved traditional systems using biomass from renewable sources have emissions that are much lower than modern energy carriers.

1


Table 1.2 Global warming commitment (grams of carbon as CO2 per MJ of delivered energy) of various cooking fuels

Fuel Biogas LPG Kerosene wick stove Kerosene press stove Improved metal stove Improved vented ceramic Three stone Source: Smith et al. (2000)

Renewable 148 139 154 173 576 472 740

7

Non-renewable 148 139 154 173 171 150 206

The inefficient and incomplete combustion of wood-fuels in traditional bioenergy systems releases a number of hazardous pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur and nitrogen oxides (NOx, SOx) and particulate matter (PM). Poor ventilation exacerbates the indoor air pollution and leads to acute respiratory infections (ARI), as well as causing chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Several studies have also linked childhood exposure to the smoke with asthma, though others have concluded that there is no interrelation. The collection of firewood is a labour intensive and dangerous process and the burden often falls in rural areas in Sub-Saharan Africa upon women and, to a lesser extent, young girls. Women gather firewood by foot, often walking long distances with an average load of 20 kg (IEA 2006). A survey of 30 households near Lake Malawi found a mean distance to a viable firewood source of 2.1 km, resulting in a mean trip length of 241 min and mean time spent collecting wood per day of 63 min (Biran et al. 2004). Also the production of charcoal is a labour intensive process, although production is often commercialized. Because of the low efficiencies, large quantities of wood are needed. In Nairobi, for example, a household that relies exclusively upon charcoal consumes 240–600 kg of charcoal per year, which equals 1.5–3.5 tons of biomass (Kammen 2006). As a result, the production and trade of charcoal is an important economic activity, which provides income, tax revenue and employment especially in rural areas. Charcoal production creates employment of 200–350 person-days per TJ energy, compared to 100–170 for firewood (where commercially supplied), 80–110 for coal, 10–20 for LPG and 10 for kerosene, based on figures from South-East Asia (RWEDP 1997). Further, the collection and use of biomass for traditional bioenergy systems can in some cases contribute to the overexploitation and degradation of ecosystems. Examples are forest degradation or deforestation, deterioration of watersheds, and loss of soil fertility and biodiversity. Although traditional biomass use is not a major driver of deforestation, population pressures and the impacts of urbanization have resulted in increased pressure on forest health and ecosystems. The wood-fuel crisis that was widely discussed in the 1970s and 1980s gave way to a recognition that the impacts of traditional biomass use have been and can be addressed through a variety of institutional changes and policy reforms (Leach and Mearns 1988). Another concern that has arisen is the impact on GHG emissions due to the decrease in above

8

E. Smeets et al.

ground biomass and soil degradation that results from unsustainable use of traditional wood-fuels. Addressing such concerns require more analysis on the GHG balances associated with traditional biomass use. Another climate-related concern associated with traditional biomass use that has become better understood in recent years is the climate impact of black carbon (soot). Black carbon is a product of incomplete combustion and can have significant impacts on both regional and global climatic processes, and thus contributing to climate change (Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008). It can be difficult to separately calculate the impacts from combustion of biomass as compared to combustion of fossil fuels or to differentiate amongst the diverse types of biomass burning (Gustafsson et al. 2009). Nevertheless, a consensus has emerged that black carbon is a major contributor to climate change and that biomass burning in households is a significant source of black carbon (Bond et al. 2004).

1.3

Improved Traditional Bioenergy Systems

Existing traditional bioenergy systems can be improved by using more efficient stoves and charcoal kilns and by switching to other fuels. Table 1.3 gives an overview of the performance of conventional and improved traditional cooking stoves. Key drivers for improved stove design are combustion efficiency, heat transfer efficiency, safety, costs, durability and local cooking practice. A wide variety of improved fuel-wood cooking stoves have been designed during the past decades; from relative inefficient (23%) stoves that are constructed from clay and grass at very low costs, but having a short lifespan, to more efficient (29%) stoves made from bricks or metal, having a long lifespan, but considerable investment cost. Furthermore, some types of improved stoves are portable, which is important because the traditional three-stone cooking stove can be easily replaced. Improved stoves are currently in use in many countries, but penetration has generally been small in terms of the percentage of households. This applies especially for the more advanced stoves that have been designed during the past few years. Examples of such stoves are the First Energy Oorja Stove, Envirofit and StoveTEC stoves. Some countries aimed at training the users to build their own stoves. Although this has in Table 1.3 Costs, efficiencies and lifetimes of various cooking stoves and the related cost of energy, in terms of utilized heat Energy carrier Stove type Efficiency (%) Cost (US$) Life-time Cost of heat (US$/GJH) Wood Three stone 14 Free – Wood Mud 23 1.4 2 month Wood Brick 29 33.2 5 years Charcoal Traditional 17 1.7 3 years Charcoal Improved 45 8.0 3 years Kerosene Kerosene 38 12.5 3 years Sources: Wiskerke et al. (2008), Ballard-Tremeer and Jawurek (1996)

14 9 7 35 legal 21 illegal 13 legal 8 illegal 95

1


9

some cases resulted in localized economic and social benefits, this approach will not reach the existing millions of biomass stove users in Sub-Saharan Africa in the near-term. The use of improved charcoal kilns is also an approach to greatly increase the overall system efficiency for the delivered energy services. Traditional earth and earth mound kilns have an efficiency of 10–20%, depending on the skills of the charcoal producer and on the tree species. A skilled charcoal producer who uses well-dried wood can reach efficiencies of up to 30% (Wiskerke et al. 2008). Improved charcoal kilns can increase the efficiency of charcoal production to 45%, as well as enhancing the quality characteristics of charcoal. Whilst most of the low-cost improved charcoal kilns have demonstrated high efficiencies under test conditions, none of the developed designs have attained substantive dissemination, largely because of the surprisingly high efficiency of traditional kilns under field conditions. A large proportion of charcoal production in Africa is carried out as a semi-illegal part-time activity since the wood used is often illegally procured. Consequently, few charcoal makers are willing to construct in-situ kilns since they would be vulnerable to punitive official measures such as imposition of tax and seizure. Consequently, dissemination of improved charcoal techniques to the informal sector has proven to be a difficult undertaking. Improved charcoal production technologies have been more successful in areas where production is undertaken on a commercialized basis as in the case of Malawi. Another focus area is the transportation of charcoal. Due to the fragility of charcoal, excessive handling and transporting over long distances can increase the amount of fines (i.e. charcoal dust that cannot be used or sold without further processing) to about 40% and thus greatly reducing the value of the charcoal. Distribution in bags can help to limit the amount of fines produced in addition to providing a convenient measurable quantity for both retail and bulk sales. There are also a number of alternatives to improve the efficient production of biomass feedstock. The production of fuel-wood from dedicated woody energy crops can reduce the demand for wood from natural resources and related overexploitation. Use of degraded or low productivity areas to grow woody energy crops can take advantage of lower land costs and offer the potential to increase the soil quality as a bonus to the resulting energy production. Integrated agro-forestry and multi-purpose systems are especially promising. Wiskerke et al. (2010) analyzed and compared the costs and benefits of three biomass energy supply systems for rural households in north Tanzania, namely (1) a small-scale forestation project for carbon sequestration under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, (2) a short rotation woodlot for the production of fuel-wood or charcoal, optionally with intercropping, and (3) a jatropha plantation that generates oil used as cooking fuel, as a diesel substitute for off-grid household electrification, or for soap production. The results show that rotational woodlots are the most economically attractive option, especially when producing poles from stem wood and charcoal from branches, whilst practising intercropping of maize. It can be concluded that there is a huge potential to increase the efficiency of existing traditional bioenergy systems by tens of percentage points in Africa.

10

E. Smeets et al.

The use of such improved technologies can also reduce indoor air pollution and contribute to reducing the costs and labour associated with wood-fuel systems. Especially women and children are expected to benefit from such a transition, because women are typically responsible for the collection of fuel-wood and women and children are exposed to indoor air pollution. The lessons learnt and trends point towards considerable markets for improved biomass-burning products and fuels.

1.4

Fuel Switching

Several projections indicate that traditional bioenergy systems will slowly be replaced by modern fuels as households become wealthier, following the ‘energy ladder’ (Fig. 1.2). The theory suggests that when the income of households increases, they ascend the ladder from low quality fuels to more convenient, cleaner and modern fuels. In the first stage, households depend solely upon solid biomass, deriving energy from the combustion of residues, waste and firewood. In the intermediate stage, households shift to fuels that burn more efficiently, but still result in significant emissions, such as charcoal and kerosene. In the most advanced stage, households move to the most convenient and cleanest commercial fuels, usually liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and electricity. Aside from their low greenhouse gas impact, some of these fossil fuels have several other advantages over wood-fuels, such as a higher energy density and higher combustion efficiency. Further, both LPG and kerosene produce less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of useful energy than wood-fuel. But, if the wood-fuels are produced from renewable sources, the carbon emissions of LPG and kerosene would be of comparable magnitude. Recently, there has been an increasing attention on liquid and gaseous biofuels for cooking, such as biogas, ethanol and ethanol-gelfuels. Several countries in Africa are currently producing ethanol from sugarcane at significant scales, including Malawi, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Other potentially suitable crops are cassava,

costs, efficiency

Gas, LPG Kerosene Charcoal Fuelwood

Fig. 1.2 Schematic representation of the fuel ladder

Crop residues, waste, dung

income

1


11

sweet sorghum, maize, and wheat. Ethanol can be burned directly in specialized stoves, though further conversion to gelfuel is a simple process that offers notable advantages. Gelfuel has a much higher viscosity than ethanol, making it easier to handle and a safe alternative, however, gelfuel has also several disadvantages. Biogas and ethanol offer the greatest potential for the reduction in GHG emissions, as both can be burned close to completion and produced sustainably. Assuming sustainable production, carbon output due to the use of biogas in household cooking would be on the order of 100 times less than for unsustainable wood-fuels (Smith et al. 2000). This is because the k-factor (factor showing how incomplete the combustion is) is so low that almost all of the carbon is released as carbon dioxide, emissions that are offset by carbon uptake due to the sustainable production of fuel. A disadvantage of the fuel ladder theory is that it implies perfect substitution of one fuel for another and that income is the decisive factor. However, recent studies suggest that there are many factors besides income that are important in determining the fuel choice. Social, economic, and technological barriers prevent the linear progression towards clean cooking fuels put forth by the energy ladder. More specifically factors such as fuel availability, affordability, cultural norms, and cooking practice impact fuel/stove adoption and continued use (IEA 2002; Pachauri and Spreng 2003; Masera et al. 2000). During the past years the ‘fuel-stacking’ model has gained ground. This model suggests that households integrate modern fuels slowly into existing energy use patterns, resulting in the use of multiple cooking fuels simultaneously (Masera et al. 2000). The fuel-stacking model is an important aspect to consider when designing and implementing policies to increase the use of improved traditional energy systems.

1.5

Conclusions

The overwhelming majority of biomass used for energy in Sub-Saharan Africa consists of fuel-wood and charcoal that is burned in low-efficiency stoves for cooking, resulting in significant socio-economic, health, and environmental impacts. A number of alternatives exist to provide higher quality energy services at lower lifecycle costs and with significant reductions of negative impacts. The challenge is to find ways to make these more efficient options more affordable and widely available, but also to ensure that they are suitable for the usage patterns in different regions and localities.

References Bailis R, Ezzati M, Kammen D (2005) Mortality and greenhouse gas impacts of biomass and petroleum energy futures in Africa. Science 308:98–103 Ballard-Tremeer G, Jawurek HH (1996) Comparison of five rural, wood-burning cooking devices: efficiencies and emissions. Biomass Bioenerg 11(5):419–430

12

E. Smeets et al.

Biran A, Abbot J, Mace R (2004) Families and firewood: a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of children in firewood collection and use in two rural communities in Sub-Saharan Africa. Hum Ecol 32:1–25 Bond T, Venkataraman C, Masera O (2004) Global atmospheric impacts of residential fuels. Energ Sust Dev 8(3):20–32 Fernandes SD, Trautman NM, Streets DG, Roden GA, Bond TC (2007) Global biofuel use, 1850–2000. Global Biochem Cycles 21:2019 Gustafsson Ö, Kruså M, Zencak Z, Sheesley RJ, Granat L, Engström E, Praveen PS, Rao PSP, Leck C, Rodhe H (2009) Brown clouds over South Asia: biomass or fossil fuel combustion? Science 323:495–498 IEA (2002) World energy outlook 2002. International Energy Agency, Paris IEA (2006) World energy outlook 2006. Energy for cooking in developing countries. International Energy Agency, Paris, p 488 IEA (2008) World energy outlook 2008. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, p 578 IEA (2009) Key world energy statistics 2009. International Energy Agency, Energy Statistics Division, Paris, p 82 IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Kammen D (2006) Bioenergy in developing countries: experiences and prospects. Focus Brief 10. IFPRI, Washington DC, p 2 Leach G, Mearns R (1988) Beyond the wood-fuel crisis: people, land, and trees in Africa. Earthscan, London, p 309 Malimbwi RE, Zahabu E (2007) Situation analysis of charcoal sector in Dar es Salaam; charcoal supply and consumption. Department of Forest Mensuration and Management, Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania Masera OR, Saatkamp BD, Kammen DM (2000) From linear fuel switching to multiple cooking strategies: a critique and alternative to the energy ladder model. World Dev 28(12):2083–2103. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00076-0 Pachauri S, Spreng D (2003) Energy use and energy access in relation to poverty. Economics Working Paper 25. Center for Energy Policy and Zurich, Switzerland, p 20 Ramanathan V, Carmichael G (2008) Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nat Geosci 1:221–227 RWEDP (1997) Regional study on wood energy today and tomorrow in Asia. FAO Regional Wood Energy Development Programme, Bangkok, p 179 Smith KR, Uma R, Kishore VVN, Zhang J, Joshi V, Khalil MAK (2000) Greenhouse implications of household stoves: an analysis for India. Annu Rev Energ Environ 25:741–763 UNDP (2009) The energy access situation in developing countries. A review focusing on the least developed countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. United Nations Development Programme, New York, USA, 142 p Wiskerke W, Dornburg V, Faaij APC, Malimbwi RE, Rubanza CDA (2008) Towards a sustainable biomass energy supply for rural households in semi-arid Shinyanga, Tanzania. Department of Science, Technology and Society, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 110 p Wiskerke WT, Dornburg V, Rubanza CDK, Malimbwi RE, Faaij APC (2010) Cost/benefit analysis of biomass energy supply options for rural smallholders in the semi-arid eastern part of Shinyanga Region in Tanzania. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(1):148–165 World Bank (2008) The welfare impact of rural electrification: a reassessment of the costs and benefits. World Bank Interdependant Evaluation Group, Washington DC, p 178

Chapter 2

Biomass Potential in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions in Botswana Mogodisheng B.M. Sekhwela and Donald L. Kgathi

Abstract The development of new biomass energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change is opening new opportunities in Botswana. Cleaner technologies have increasingly led to the transformation of biomass into various bioenergy carriers for the use in modern energy systems that have lower GHG emissions. Whilst the use of biomass for energy purposes in rangelands has been as problematic as overgrazing, an increasing trend towards bush encroachment is observed in the dry-lands of southern Africa as a result of climate change. This chapter explores the potential of bioenergy development on arid lands in Botswana based on species associated with bush encroachment, invading species, and other potential energy sources such as oil plants. Bush encroachment and invasive species could be assessed for sustainable production of wood pellets either under management systems of the naturally occurring resources or by established plantations. Naturally occurring oil plants in Botswana such as Ximenia sp. are identified as potential sources for bioenergy production. Further research on the possibilities of using this plant species for bioenergy production is recommended. Keywords Potential • Botswana • Bush encroachment • Climate change • Dry-lands • Oil plants • Ximenia

M.B.M. Sekhwela (*) Office of Research and Development, University of Botswana, 4775, Notwane Rd Gaborone, Botswana e-mail: [email protected] D.L. Kgathi Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre, University of Botswana, Shorobe Road, Matlapana, Maun, Botswana e-mail: [email protected]


13

14

2.1

M.B.M. Sekhwela and D.L. Kgathi

Introduction

The development of new biomass energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate climate change is opening new opportunities in Botswana. The consequences of the changing climate and its associated hazardous and extreme weather conditions have increased commitment to the development of less polluting energy sources. As predicted by Hall et al. (1993), communities are now seeking to exploit the high potential of biomass energy. Cleaner technologies have increasingly led to the transformation of biomass into various bioenergy carriers for the use in modern energy systems that have lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As an encompassing term, bioenergy includes traditional biomass energy, energy of the poor in developing countries, and higher value and more efficient biomass-based energy carriers such as electricity, biogas and bioethanol (Kartha et al. 2005). Bioenergy is associated with environmental and ecological impacts that positively or adversely affect environmental sustainability (Sekhwela 1997). Therefore, the sustainability of bioenergy has become increasingly important globally in recent years and forms the basis for assessing the potential for the development of future energy production systems (Fehrenbach et al. 2008). Sustainability criteria are already developed for biofuels, particularly in the European Union (Schlegel and Kaphengst 2007), and several certification systems have already been introduced for instance for forestry products (e.g. Forestry Stewardship Council – FSC). With respect to sustainability the main issues of concern addresses greenhouse gas balances, biodiversity, environment, food security, welfare of the community, and wellbeing of workers and of the local population (Fehrenbach et al. 2008; Royal Society 2008; Smeets 2008; Rutz et al. 2010). In order to ensure that biofuels are produced in a sustainable way, a number of countries are now introducing sustainability certification systems, whereby the buyers of biofuels ensure that their production complies with certain standards or sustainability criteria (Smeets 2008). Potential markets for bioenergy products and services are developing within these frameworks defined by certification processes based on sustainability criteria. Collectively, the frameworks provide critical guidance as well as a basis for evaluating new initiatives in the development of bioenergy systems. The sustainability criteria are based on the experience of unsustainable bioenergy production and supply, including that of some imported products and services. An example is the palm oil imported into the European Union from Asia, where its production may have caused deforestation and loss of biodiversity (Wicke et al. 2008). Hence, there is an increasing pressure for the development and adoption of sustainability criteria in countries that produce bioenergy as the EU considers the import of bioenergy products and services to be part of the options for meeting its GHGs reduction targets (de Pous 2008). Sub-Saharan Africa is considered a high potential region for the production of bioenergy products for export to EU markets under these globally evolving sustainability criteria (Bekunda et al. 2008). This could create opportunities for a number

2 Biomass Potential in Arid and Semi-Arid Regions in Botswana

15

of countries in the region, including Botswana which has started looking at the potential for bioenergy production as an alternative for substituting fossil fuels (Kedikilwe 2008). This chapter explores the potential of bioenergy production on arid lands in Botswana, based on woody biomass from bush encroachment and invading species as well as from other potential energy sources such as oil plants. The specific objectives of this chapter are (1) to describe the potential for sustainable production and supply of bioenergy products and (2) to highlight opportunities and challenges that exist and could enable better decisions on bioenergy pathway choices.

2.1.1

Analytical Framework for Woody Biomass Sustainability

The predominant form of bioenergy in developing countries is traditional biomass energy. Its harvesting has been associated with deforestation and land degradation, particularly around major villages and urban centres in Africa (Krutilla 1995). In addition, increased removal of the preferred species and the overgrazing of rangelands have subsequently led to bush encroachment, which is associated with impenetrable thickets that have no immediate economic value (Skarpe 1990 and 1991). Whilst this bush encroachment process has been largely attributed to overgrazing by livestock, there is also increasing evidence that the woody vegetation component in the dry-lands of southern Africa is likely to increase as a result of climate change (Bond and Midgley 2000). There are also problems associated with invading woody species that are now expanding uncontrollably in Botswana and South Africa such as Prosopis sp. (Zimmerman and Pasiecznik 2005). However, in South Africa the economic value of these species is being derived by using the wood for timber and the fruits as fodder. Additional benefits may include the use for bioenergy systems (Zimmerman and Pasiecznik 2005). Hence, there is a potential economic value associated with the increasing woody biomass in the dry-lands of Botswana which can sustain rural livelihoods, currently adversely affected by the changing vegetation resources. Examples of these invading woody plant species include many of the Acacia species and Dichrostachys cinerea, particularly in overgrazed areas, and Prosopis sp. that is taking over the Kalahari sand areas, outcompeting indigenous species along water courses and lowering the water tables in Botswana. However, some of the invading species like Acacia mellifera and Dichrostachys cinerea were found to have high economic value as fuel-wood and construction wood, particularly when they have reached the shrub and tree stages (Sekhwela et al. 2007). Whilst studies on land degradation mainly focused on the risks of increasing woody vegetation, few studies have looked at the opportunities, especially in drylands such as those of Botswana and other southern African countries. The economic potential has already been identified by some communities, but it can be increased by the use in bioenergy systems. This will further mitigate climate change and could contribute to the attainment of the millennium development goals (MDGs). Thus, bush encroachment may lead to increased incomes that improve the economic status

16


of the poor. Further potential of such resources could emerge beyond the energy dimensions to include other wood products and reduce pressure on the harvest of natural forest resources and destruction of wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

2.1.2

Study Area and Sources of Data

The study area, Botswana, is a semi-arid country with an annual rainfall ranging from a minimum of 250 mm in the south to a maximum of 650 mm in the north. Botswana is a middle income country with a gross national income per capita of US$ 5,840 (for 2007) (World Bank 2008). Although fuel-wood is the main source of energy in rural areas, modern energy sources are also used. Electricity and petroleum based products are the main sources of energy in urban areas. The 2005 energy balance of Botswana shows that the contribution of modern renewable energy to final energy supply is insignificant. Petroleum was the most important source of energy (34%), followed by coal (29%), traditional biomass energy (27.5%) and electricity (8.8%) (Mabowe 2009). Botswana has large resources of coal, estimated at 212 billion tons. There are currently no known petroleum reserves and Botswana is therefore a net importer of petroleum products (Mabowe 2009). Data for this chapter were synthesised from secondary sources including studies of bush encroachment and woody biomass carried out in Botswana and in the region. Biomass production potential was estimated from ongoing long-term studies in Botswana and in the region, whenever it was possible. Export potential was assessed on the basis of existing international trade on woody products. Information on oil plants was derived mainly from secondary sources, and where data on plant occurrence and population distribution was available, potential supply areas have been highlighted in maps.

2.2

Results and Discussions

The plant species identified for potential bioenergy production have been categorised into woody biomass resources (mainly composed of the highlighted invader species) and oil plants.

2.2.1

Woody Biomass Resources

Woody plant species that could be harvested for bioenergy processing are found all over Botswana. Some of the species occur in the whole country from the sandy Kalahari soils to the loamy and relatively fertile soils along the eastern part of the country (Fig. 2.1). Such species also span the different rainfall regimes indicating


17

Fig. 2.1 Map of sites with different woody plant species identified as potential bioenergy species in Botswana

high adaptation potential. The quantitative data derived from various studies show variable plant densities with higher figures in some areas reflecting formation of impenetrable thickets of some species such as A. mellifera (Table 2.1) (Skarpe 1991; Sekhwela 2003; Ringrose et al. 2003). This particular species occurs all over the country due to overgrazing. It is invasive and forms close canopies. However, it grows to medium tree layer. It is thus a suitable source of fuel-wood and construction poles (Sekhwela 2003). A similar pattern of invasiveness and dominance in overgrazed areas is also exhibited by D. cinerea, a species with a high fodder value (fruits) (Moleele 1998). It is also used as fuel-wood and construction poles for fencing of arable fields as observed in the Kweneng District in Botswana. Farmers mentioned that the poles produced from this species are termite resistant (Fig. 2.2). The potential of these invasive species could be relatively high as they regenerate easily and are often multiple stemmed, allowing for selective harvesting of preferred stem sizes (Table 2.2). The measured production rates were found to be comparatively high, given the generally low rates of slow growing trees in the arid and

18


Table 2.1 Examples of woody bush encroachment species as potential bioenergy source in Botswana Species Location Plant densities (no/ha) Source A. mellifera Tsabong 98 Sekhwela (2003) A. mellifera Khokhotsha 33 Sekhwela (2003) A. mellifera Inalegolo 91 Sekhwela (2003) A. mellifera Chobokwane 181 Sekhwela (2003) A. mellifera Grootlaagte 10 Sekhwela (2003) A. mellifera Xhana (Maun) 129 Sekhwela (2003) A. mellifera Maun (Other location) 74 Ringrose et al. (2003)a A. mellifera Okwa Valley 3,556 Ringrose et al. (2003) A. mellifera Tshane 2,383 Ringrose et al. (2003) A. mellifera Ncojane 3,765 Skarpe (1991) D. cinerea Khokhotsha 7 Sekhwela (2003) D. cinerea Inalegolo 13 Sekhwela (2003) D. cinerea Chobokwane 135 Sekhwela (2003) D. cinerea Grootlaagte 39 Sekhwela (2003) D. cinerea Xhana (Maun) 515 Sekhwela (2003) D. cinerea Maun (Other location) 2,839 Ringrose et al. (2003) D. cinerea Okwa Valley 3,185 Ringrose et al. (2003) D. cinerea Tshane 259 Ringrose et al. (2003) G. bicolour Inalegolo 142 Sekhwela (2003) G. bicolour Grootlaagte 94 Sekhwela (2003) G. bicolour Xhana (Maun) 105 Sekhwela (2003) G. bicolour Maun (Other location) 1,876 Ringrose et al. (2003) G. flava Maun (Other location) 5,629 Ringrose et al. (2003) G. flava Okwa Valley 20,629 Ringrose et al. (2003) G. flava Tshane 9,667 Ringrose et al. (2003) a Plant densities were obtained by expressing the total plant counts for each species in belt transects of 3 m by 90 m

semi-arid regions (Tietema 1993; Sekhwela 2000). The vigour exhibited during invasion and coppice regeneration, particularly of Grewia bicolor which is common in the sandy Kalahari (Maun, Okwa Valley and Tshane), and as measured in the Tsabong area (southern Kalahari) (Table 2.1 and Fig. 2.1), showed significant annual production (Sekhwela 2000, unpublished data). Other species like Colophospermum mopane, which is also a vigorous secondary coloniser and coppicer, also form exclusive stands and have high production rates that cause small farmers to cut back and burn the regrowth yearly in fields before ploughing, also called ‘slash-and-burn’ practice (Table 2.3). Similarly, the massive root system and multiple stem nature of G. bicolor cause strong re-growth after cutting, showing high potential for continuous production with selected stem harvest in a given growth cycle (Sekhwela 2000, unpublished data). Whilst it is cherished for its sweet berries that are harvested and sold at local markets, it was also found highly popular for the production of courtyards in the Kalahari. Hardly any record was made of dead Grewia plants in the woodland assessments (Sekhwela 2003).


19

Fig. 2.2 Poles of D. Cinerea used in arable fields fencing in the Kweneng District, Botswana

Table 2.2 Regeneration through Botswana Species Acacia mellifera Dichrostachys cinerea Grewia bicolor Colophospermum mopane Acacia tortilis

coppice of potential bioenergy woody plant invaders in Annual coppice Vigorous Vigorous Vigorous Vigorous Vigorous

Source Sekhwela (2000) Sekhwela (2000) (unpublished data) Sekhwela (2000) (unpublished data) Mushove and Makoni (1993) Tietema (1993)

Table 2.3 Indicative biomass production rates of potential bioenergy woody plant species in their natural growth environment (fresh weight) Standing stock Annual production Species (t/ha per year) (t/ha per year) Source Acacia mellifera 5–8 0.7 Sekhwela (2000) Dichrostachys cinerea 0.5a – Sekhwela (2000) (unpublished data) Grewia bicolor 0.2a – Sekhwela (2000) (unpublished data) Colophospermum mopane 117 10.7 Tietema (1993) Acacia tortilis 24 1.8 Tietema (1993) a Encroaching plants still bushed at the time of measurements in Maun (D. cinerea) and Tsabong (G. Bicolor)

20


Whilst these species are considered here for potential bioenergy resources, their current importance underlines their multiple use and potential for diversifying the economic opportunities of rural communities. The fodder value of the fruits of the vigorous invader D. cinerea, is considered high in Zimbabwe, whilst cattle were observed to ingest its fruits in a monitoring study in Botswana (Abbot 1993; Moleele 1998). Similarly, Sekhwela (2003) recorded a heavy reliance on A. mellifera flowers and sprouting twigs by goats in the Kalahari during the dry season that saves livestock during the period of high food stress. The fruits of A. tortilis that have in the past been ingested by livestock in the rangelands are nowadays collected by rural inhabitants for sale to livestock farmers. This creates a conflict with livestock owners of cattle which ingest the fruits of this tree species in the area (Dube and Sekhwela 2008). The foregoing results highlight the interactive nature of the use of natural resources in rural economies for energy and other purposes as both A. mellifera and D. cinerea are valuable for the production of fuel-wood and construction poles. However, the oversupply of these tree species, due to their invasiveness and vigorous growth, makes them a nuisance, hence they have the potential to be used for the development of modern energy systems. The harvested bushes/wood could also be chipped and packaged for export as feedstock for biomass energy conversion systems (Heinimo and Junginger 2009). The harvesting and packaging would create employment for the local communities together with resource management systems to be put in place for sustainable supply. This would provide income for the poor whose livelihoods are currently compromised by these invading species. The harvesting of these resources would increase carbon sequestration with new replacement growth of the regeneration processes, or restoration of grasslands for normal economic activities. Opportunities for producing other forms of bioenergy such as liquid biofuels could be explored, given the large variety of ‘nutty’ plant species that are found in the dry-lands such as Sclerocarya birrea, Ximenia sp. and other plant species that store energy in the form of oils (Taylor 2000; Bekunda et al. 2008). These species are within the reach of the rural communities and can contribute to economic development by providing adaption strategies to potential impacts of climate change in Botswana (Dube and Sekhwela 2008).

2.2.2

Oil Plant Resources

There are generally few studies that have explored the oil potential of plants found in Botswana (Table 2.4). Such studies have generally been left to the cosmetic industry until recently with increasing desire to find alternative liquid fuel resources. The existing information is largely anecdotal for the few species that are now being exploited for cosmetics and food, such as Sclerocarya birrea and Ximenia sp., for which production assessments have been carried out (Phytotrade 2007). For instance, the oil content of Ximenia sp. was found to be 70% of the kernel weight, with the quality close to that of olives (Phytotrade 2008). The oil content is even higher than


21

Table 2.4 Oil plant species found in Botswana (Source: Taylor 2000) Species Oil source Uses of other plant parts Cleome gynandra Seeds Leaves and flowers edible Croton megalobotrys Seeds Bark and seeds medicinal Croton menyharttii Leaves Fruit edible Xeminia species Seeds Fruit edible, bark and leaves medicinal Sclerocarya birrea Seeds Fruit edible Pluchea leubnitziae Whole plant Essential oils Ricinus commins Seeds – Pappea capensis Seeds Fruits edible, seeds and leaves medicinal

that of Jatropha curcas, an energy crop with 40% oil content (Azam et al. 2005). However, the short acid chains of Ximenia oil lead to gumming in the engine combustion chambers (Azam et al. 2005). Due to its high oil content, Ximenia sp. shows good potential as energy plant, but there is need for more research on the possibilities of commercial production as well as on oil extraction and processing for energy products and services. Whilst Sclerocarya birrea has a larger fruit than Ximenia sp., it has a lower oil component relative to the size of the fruit. However, the fruit of S. birrea has been largely valued for its flesh which is used as food and also for drinks and liquors. Whilst the same can be said about Ximenia sp., only the flesh that is high in vitamin C has been traditionally used as food, and the kernel is usually thrown away. There is hardly any information on the oil potential of other species in Botswana (Table 2.4) and in many other southern African countries (Bekunda et al. 2008). As indicated in Table 2.4, many of the species have other economic uses that raise their potential for diversifying rural economies. In particular, Ximenia sp., which is a good browse species that coppices well and that has a fast growth rate. Therefore it could be valuable for small farmers (Abbot 1993). Sclerocraya birrea which is valued for its wood is a vigorous and fast coppicing plant. All the abovementioned plants occur naturally. They are beneficial to humans, livestock and wild animals. Their use for various applications has been identified. The potential impacts of these species for bioenergy development at a larger scale than the current use are not yet known. It is however notable that the current uses of these species by rural communities have been in existence for millennia being sustainable in terms of resource availability, biodiversity and related ecosystem services.

2.2.3

Trade in Bioenergy Products and Services

According to Heinimo and Junginger (2009), the development of international trade in biomass for energy purposes is still in its early stages, but grows rapidly as influenced by international climate agreements. Sub-Saharan Africa is considered to become one of the important producers in the long-term, whilst the main demand will be in the OECD countries and South-East Asia. Heinimo and Junginger (2009)

22


indicate that wood pellets will be a successfully traded commodity due to their low moisture content, high calorific value, stability over time and easy handling which allows for long distance transportation. Pellets would therefore be the most favoured option for using invading woody plant species growing in remote areas with poor infrastructure. Conversion of this resource into tradable pellets could contribute to the creation of small-scale rural industrial enterprises and a diversification of income generating activities for the rural poor.

2.2.4

Sustainability Potential

Available information on both woody and oil plant resources indicates a high potential for meeting sustainability criteria, particularly from production systems that could ‘mimic’ natural ecosystems. The invasive species are mostly secondary colonisers that exhibit the behaviour due to the imbalances created by improper land use systems that result in overgrazing and consequent land degradation. Where these species are managed properly, the production can be sustainable and provide ecosystem services as part of the natural habitat of the areas. The vigorous growth exhibited by some of the species shows their ability to grow in semi-arid and arid conditions that are predicted to further degrade due to climate change (Hulme 1996). The adaptation would increase the potential to meet the water use and preservation criteria, whilst the natural occurrence of the species will positively influence its biodiversity contribution. For instance, Ximenia sp. was found to be valuable as a habitat for the pupal stage of the Imbrasia belina moth of which the host is Colophospermum mopane in north-eastern Botswana (Sekhwela et al. 2007). There is generally no reliable long-term data and information to determine the sustainability of potential production systems of oil feedstock on a commercial basis. The processing of oil from these indigenous plant species is also not adequately known. Hence, Bekunda et al. (2008) noted with concern that despite the fact that the potential of oil plants in South Africa, has long been identified, hardly any research has been carried out. It also became apparent that even the exotic plants such as Jatropha curcas have not been sufficiently studied for their suitability for growing in the arid and semi-arid conditions such as those found in southern Africa (Bekunda et al. 2008). Nevertheless, some countries such as Namibia have embarked on production of bioenergy based on Jatropha curcas without further research (Namibian Agronomy Board 2007). Whilst Botswana has also identified the same species as potentially suitable for production, it has embarked on studies to determine the suitability and sustainability of production systems (Botswana Government 2009a). Botswana has also recently completed a study on the development of a biomass energy strategy which is supposed to create a sound development of bioenergy resources in the country (Botswana Government 2009b). It is important that local species are included in such studies. For instance, anecdotal information shows that the softly coated seed of C. mopane contains oil, highlighting again the potential multiple benefits from indigenous species.


23

In reviewing the current approach to the development of alternative fuels, the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) noted that it is not yet clear how the identified bioenergy production systems are positively contributing to sustainable climate change mitigation (Klepper et al. 2008). It was also realised that invariably bioenergy systems are dependent on ecosystems and vulnerable to climate change, like food production systems. ESSP also noted that whilst the production of bioenergy crops has recently been linked to food shortages, the issue of land availability for bioenergy production has not been settled and there is need for further research. Klepper et al. (2008) also noted that it is not yet clearly known how much biofuels can contribute to mitigate climate change, and how sustainability standards for bioenergy systems should be defined.

2.2.5

Implications for Bioenergy Policy

As highlighted in the introduction, the existing sustainability criteria are guiding principles for new energy initiatives that have to be in line with the global driver to reduce GHG emissions and mitigate climate change. The criteria also include aspects on the protection and enhancement of environment and ecosystem services, whilst maintaining socio-economic development that has both local and off-site benefits. Therefore, the current draft on bioenergy policies in Botswana can benefit from the sustainability criteria. The approach adopted by the Government of Botswana to undertake studies to determine the suitability and potential of various bioenergy production systems and crops is a step in the right direction. Research also includes indigenous plants that have potential for bioenergy production and other applications for food, fodder and medicine in Botswana and other southern African countries. As already suggested, indigenous species have the advantage of serving multiple uses and forming part of the existing natural ecosystem services that include habitat for fauna.

2.3

Conclusions

The introduction of sustainability criteria could provide a robust framework to guide the development of suitable and sustainable bioenergy systems in Botswana. As bioenergy production systems rely on plant-based feedstock, locally available energy resources can provide opportunities for diversifying rural economies. The identified woody plant species that have low economic value due to their overproduction relative to local use can be used for the production of modern energy systems locally or off-site. The production of wood chips or pellets could be a suitable option for biomass trade. Similarly, oil plants are largely unexplored for biofuel purposes, and currently little information is available and often limited to trees that serve cosmetic industries. The utilisation of invading woody species for bioenergy

24


production is likely to contribute to the mitigation of climate change and to enhance the attainment of the MDGs. Therefore, further research is recommended, particularly on production systems to use plants for the production of bioenergy. Specifically, research is urgently needed on the following topics: • Potential for sustainable reduction of invasive species and their use for bioenergy feedstock and markets • Impact of invasiveness on biodiversity and harvesting for bioenergy purposes • Potential for plantations of invasive species and oil plants • Determination of suitable processing technologies for both woody and oil containing resources

References Abbot PG (1993) Research and development of simple silvicultural systems for community management of Miombo in Malawi. In: Piearce GD, Gumbo DJ (eds) The ecology and management of indigenous forests in southern Africa. The Forestry Commission, Harare Azam MM, Warris A, Nahar NM (2005) Prospects and potential of fatty acid methyl esters of some non-traditional seed oils for use as biodiesel in India. Biomass Bioenerg 29:293–302 Bekunda M, Palm CA, De Fraiture C et al (2008) Biofuels in developing countries. In: Howarth RW, Bringezu S (eds) Biofuels: environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), 22–25 September 2008, Gummersbach, Germany. Cornell University, Ithaca Bond WJ, Midgley GF (2000) A proposed CO2- controlled mechanism of woody plants invasion in grasslands and savannas. Glob Change Biol 6:865–869 Botswana Government (2009a) A tender for provision of consultancy services for the development of national biofuels guidelines and research on the effects of Jatropha sp farming on local farmers. Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs, Gaborone Botswana Government (2009b) Botswana biomass energy strategy. Final report, Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs, Gaborone de Pous P (2008) EEB policy briefing on EU biofuels and bioenergy policy. European Environmental Bureau (aisbl), Brussels. www.eeb.org Dube PO, Sekhwela MBM (2008) Indigenous knowledge, institutions and practices for coping with variable climate in the Limpopo Basin of Botswana. In: Leary N, Adejuwon J, Barros V, Burton I, Kulkarni J, Lasco R (eds) Climate change and adaptation. Earthscan, London, pp 71–89. Fehrenbach H, Glegrich J, Reinhardt G et al (2008) Criteria for a (include all authors) sustainable use of bioenergy on a global scale. Research report 206-41-112, Federal Environmental Agency, Federal Ministry of the Environment, Netherlands. http://www.umweltbundesamt.de Hall DO, Rosillo-Calle F, Williams RH et al (1993) Biomass for energy: supply prospects. In: Johansson HK, Reddy AKN, Williams RH (eds) Renewable energy: sources for fuels and electricity. Island Press, Washington D.C Heinimo J, Junginger M (2009) Production and trading of biomass for energy – an overview of the global status. Biomass Bioenerg 33:1310–1320 Hulme M (1996) Climate change and southern Africa: an explotation of some potential impacts and implications for SADC Region. Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Kartha S, Leach G, Rajan SC (2005) Advancing bioenergy for sustainable development: guidelines for policymakers and investors. Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP) report 300/05, Advancing Bioenergy for Sustainable development Word Bank, Washington Kedikilwe K (2008) The Minister speech, annexure 1. Proceedings of the Botswana biofuels workshopm, 15th–16th July 2008. Department of Energy, Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs, Gaborone


25

Klepper G, Canadell P, Leemans R et al (2008) ESSP Research on bioenergy and earth sustainability: tapping GEC programme-wide expertise for the benefit of science and society. IHDP Update Science Dialogue Extra, Special Edition 2008: 31–36. www.ihdp.org Krutilla K, Hyde WF, Barnes D (1995) Periurban deforestation in developing countries. Forest Ecol Manag 74:181–195 Mabowe BR (2009) A proposal for biodiesel development from Jatropha seeds. Ministry of Minereals, energy and water resources, Gaborone Moleele NM (1998) Encroacher woody plant browse as feed for cattle: cattle diet composition for three seasons at Olifants Drift South East Botswana. J Arid Environ 40:255–268 Mushove PT, Makoni JT (1993) Coppicing ability of Colophospermum mopane. In: Piearce GD, Gumbo DJ (eds) The ecology and management of indigenous forests in southern Africa. The Forestry Commission, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp 226–230 Namibian Agronomic Board (2007) Annual report number 20. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Windhoek Phyto Trade Africa (2007) Morula Oil. http://www.phytotradeafrica.com/products/MarulaOil.html Phyto Trade Africa (2009) Xemenia Oil. http://www.phytotradeafrica.com/products/xeminiaoil Ringrose S, Matheson W, Wolski P, Huntsman-Mapila P (2003) Vegetation cover trends along the Botswana transect. J Arid Environ 54:297–317 Royal Society (2008) Sustainable biofuels: prospects and challenges. Royal Society, London Rutz D, Van Dam J, Janssen R, Hiegl W, Diaz Chavez RA, Woods J, Faaij APC, Smeets EMW, Vos J, Vis M, Bottriell K, Rettenmaier N, Reinhardt G, Nussbaum R, Gozzi A, Haye A, da Silva Walter AC, Hilbert JA, Coto C, Fallot A, Sawe EN, Togola I, Ouattare O, Jaax R (2010) Global socio-economic impact assessment of biofuel and bioproduct chains. Proceedings of the 18th European biomass conference and exhibition; ISBN 978-88-89407-56-5 Schlegel S, Kaphengst T (2007) European Union policy on bioenergy and the role of sustainability criteria and certification systems. J Agric Food Ind Organ 5(7):1–17 Sekhwela MBM (1997) Environmental impact of wood biomass use in Botswana: the case of fuelwood. In: Kgathi DL, Hall DO, Hategeka A, Sekhwela MBM (eds) Biomass energy policy in Africa. Zed Books Ltd, London, pp 64–144 Sekhwela MBM (2000) Woody biomass production ecology in Kalahari communal areas of Botswana. PhD Thesis, Botany Department, University of Queensland, Brisbane Sekhwela MBM (2003) Woody vegetation resource changes round selected settlement along aridity gradient in the Kalahari, Botswana. J Arid Environ 54:469–482 Sekhwela MBM, Ntseane PG, Dube PO et al (2007) Towards an integrated sustainable harvesting, management and conservation of Phane and Mophane Woodland. Phase I final report, Office of Research and Development, University of Botswana, Gaborone Skarpe C (1990) Shrub layer dynamics under different herbivore densities in arid savanna, Botswana. J Appl Ecol 27:873–885 Skarpe C (1991) Spatial patterns and dynamics of woody vegetation in arid savanna. J Veg Sci 2:565–572 Smeets E (2008) Possibilities and limitations for sustainable bioenergy production systems. PhD Thesis, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University, The Netherland Taylor FW (2000) Changes in the utilisation and management of renewable natural resources (veld products) in the Kalahari. In: Ringrose S, Chanda S (eds) Towards sustainable management in the Kalahari region: some essential background and critical issues. Directorate of Research and Development, University of Botswana, Gaborone Tietema T (1993) Possibilities for the management of indigenous woodlands in southern Africa: a case study from Botswana. In: Piearce GD, Gumbo DJ (eds) The ecology and management of indigenous forests in southern Africa. The Forestry Commission, Harare Wicke B, Dornburg V, Junginger M et al (2008) Different palm oil production systems for energy purposes and their greenhouse gas implications. Biomass Bioenerg 32(12):1322–1337 World Bank (2008) World development report. World Bank, Washington D.C Zimmerman H, Pasiecznik NM (2005) Realistic approaches to the management of Prosopis species in South Africa. Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria

Chapter 3

Jatropha: A Promising Crop for Africa’s Biofuel Production? Janske van Eijck, Edward Smeets, and André Faaij

Abstract Jatropha has often been proposed as a miracle crop for the production of oil, because of the high yields and low requirements in terms of land quality, climate and crop management. A large number of companies have started with jatropha production in Africa which is projected to increase rapidly. Yet, the sector is not fully developed and therefore the economic viability is unclear. Crucial issues for the economic performance are the crop management system, level of inputs and thereby yield and labour requirements, the price of jatropha seeds, and the business model used (e.g. farmer-centred, plantation model). Other factors influencing the sustainability of jatropha production and use are land use conversions and their resulting impacts on GHG emissions, as well as socio-economic impacts which depend largely on the combination of local socio-economic circumstances and on the business model. Plantations have generally larger negative effects on biodiversity and land issues than farmer-centred models, but larger positive effects on employment levels. Farmer-centred models are generally more pro-poor due to technological spillovers and the larger number of farmers involved. Especially when jatropha products are used to increase energy access, local communities can benefit. More research is required to determine optimised agricultural practices, long-term effects on food security, local prosperity and gender issues and technological development of equipment that can use jatropha products. It should be avoided to replace food crops with jatropha to avoid negative impacts on food security.

J. van Eijck (*) • E. Smeets • A. Faaij Department of Science, Technology and Society, Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 6, 3584 CD, Utrecht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]; www.chem.uu.nl/nws; [email protected] www.chem.uu.nl/nws; [email protected]


27

28

J. van Eijck et al.

Keywords Jatropha • Cultivation • Yields • Labour requirement • Plantation • Outgrowers • Crop management system • Business model • Socio economic impacts • Farmer-centred model • Contract farming • Outgrower • Government-centred model • Corporate-centred model

3.1

Introduction

Sub-Saharan Africa is frequently mentioned as a region with large potential for bioenergy production (Marrison and Larson 1996; Hoogwijk et al. 2005; Smeets et al. 2007). However, the production and use of bioenergy does not necessarily contribute to sustainable development. The environmental and socio-economic impacts depend, amongst others, on natural conditions (climate, soil), socio-economic settings (employment, poverty, governance), and crop production systems (low vs. intermediate or high inputs) (Dornburg et al. 2010; Schut et al. 2010b). Jatropha has been promoted as a potential renewable energy source. Initially it was claimed to simultaneously reclaim waste land, enhance rural development as well as producing biofuels (Francis et al. 2005). Large investments in jatropha (Jatropha curcas L.) are ongoing, a total of 900,000 ha were planted globally up to 2008, and projections for 2015 show a total of 12.8 million ha of which large parts are in Asia (± 80%) and Africa (± 15%) (GEXI 2008). But, agronomy, socio-economic and technical aspects of the jatropha value chain and its implications on the sustainable livelihoods of people are still unknown. The uncertainties will be described in this chapter focusing on cultivation management, yields, labour requirements, price of jatropha seeds, different business models, and on socio-economic impacts.

3.2

Cultivation Management and Yields

Most of the Jatropha curcas L. grown in Africa is from the Cape Verde variety. Other two varieties that are identified are the Nicaraguan and Mexican varieties, with larger, but with fewer fruits and less toxic seeds compared to the Cape Verde variety (IFAD/FAO 2010). The plant requires relatively little management and starts to produce seeds after 1–3 years, depending on soil and climate conditions (van Eijck and Romijn 2008). Jatropha can be productive for 30–50 years (Achten et al. 2008; van Eijck and Romijn 2008; IFAD/FAO 2010). Field preparation required before planting jatropha consists of ploughing, marking and digging holes. Jatropha does not require high quality soils, but cannot stand water logging and therefore heavy soils like heavy clay soils are less suitable (Achten et al. 2008). Planting of jatropha uses different propagation techniques, namely direct sowing, seedlings raised in nurseries or via vegetative propagation by plant cuttings. Cuttings have a much quicker growth path, but the plants will not

3

Jatropha: A Promising Crop for Africa’s Biofuel Production

29

develop tap roots which may be problematic in extremely dry areas. Plant spacing can vary, the optimum density is determined by the purpose of planting, e.g. as fence, erosion stopper, support tree for vanilla, or to produce biofuels on monoculture plantations. If other crops are planted on the same plot (i.e. in intercropping systems), a distance of at least 3–5 m is required between jatropha rows. This allows other crops to obtain enough sunlight. Weeding is normally only required in the first 4 years after planting jatropha. After this period jatropha plants have grown enough to compete favourably for sunlight with weeds (Loos 2008; Mitchell 2008). Especially after rainy periods weeds can grow vigorously and compete for nutrients in the soil. Therefore, weeding is one of the most important tasks during the initial stages of cultivation. Pruning should be carried out every year, since this practice induces branching, which in turn stimulates higher yields. Pruning should be performed before the start of rainy periods (Achten et al. 2008; Behera et al. 2010). Periodic thinning is advised for plantations, to enable sunlight to reach the jatropha plants (Jongschaap et al. 2007). Fertilisation can increase yields significantly. This is an important aspect because nutrient levels may decrease when jatropha seeds are harvested and if these nutrients are not replenished. Based on the nutrient composition of jatropha fruits taken from Jongschaap et al. (2007) it can be estimated that from harvesting one ton of seeds 14.3–34.3 kg N, 0.7–7.0 kg P and 14.3–31.6 kg K are removed from the soil (Achten et al. 2008). However, existing fertilisation rates are often much lower (Mwangi 1996; IAC 2004). At the moment several tests are being executed to identify the value of seedcake, which is obtained after pressing of jatropha seeds, as fertiliser. Furthermore, pest and disease control reduces fungal and insect attacks, although the effectiveness on the long-term for large plantations is not (yet) known. Jatropha can be sensitive during the first years, in Kenya for example many farmers reported damage by insects (GTZ 2009b). When jatropha plants are mature, fruits will be generated after every rainy period. Several fruit development stages (flowering and fruiting) occur on the same plant, so repeated harvesting is required over a period of several months (Mitchell 2008). Each fruit contains three seeds, although occasionally two or four seeds can be found. The fruits need to be dehulled to obtain the seeds. This demands larger labour efforts (see Sect. 3.3) or machinery, if available. Drying of the seeds is required if the moisture content of the seeds is too high. Packing and transport to the processing unit are the final steps before the oil is produced. The level of inputs varies with different cultivation systems. Inputs refer to the use of agro-chemicals (pesticides, herbicides), fertilisers and other management practices like pruning and weeding. Three levels of inputs can be distinguished. In case of a low input system no agro-chemicals or fertilisers (synthetic or manure) are used and no pruning and irrigation is applied. Only weeding is performed. This crop management is common practice in smallholder agricultural systems (Loos 2008; Mitchell 2008; Fermont et al. 2009). In an intermediate input system limited use is made of agro-chemicals, fertilisers (synthetic or manure), and weeding and pruning is carried out, but no irrigation is applied. Lastly, a high input system refers to a high level of fertilising, weeding, pruning, and irrigation. This last system is not common practice for smallholders, but is practised by more capital intensive investments on

30

J. van Eijck et al.

plantation scale. The different levels of input have a significant impact on the yield, although the number of field data is limited, especially with respect to the performance on the long-term. Other inputs required for jatropha cultivation are: tools for field preparation, weed control and pruning (hoes and machetes), the initial seeds or seedlings for planting, fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation systems (if applicable), and potentially land rent. Also packaging material expenses can be part of input expenses. Depending on the year, total expenses excluding labour in a low or intermediate input system lie between 21 and 68 US$ ha−1 year−1. There is large variability in jatropha yields due to differences in climate, soil characteristics and crop management (Achten et al. 2008, FACT Foundation 2009; van Eijck et al. 2011). Systematic yield monitoring for jatropha started only recently, so there are still large uncertainties about long-term yields. Older jatropha literature mentions a large range of 0.5–12 t ha−1 year−1 (Francis et al. 2005). Based on recent data the bandwidth is narrowed, the upper range of 12 t ha−1 year−1 has been reduced. For example, Jongschaap et al. (2007) projected a maximum of 7.8 t ha−1 year−1for mature stands with a range of 1.5–7.8 t ha−1 year−1. And Trabucco et al. (2010) modelled yields based on a maximum of 5 t ha−1 year−1. Jongschaap et al. (2007) also mention observed yields for 1 or 2 year old plantations, ranging from 0.6–4.0 t ha−1 year−1, whilst Heller (1996) and Tewari (2007) state 2.0–3.0 t ha−1 year−1 as a good range for semi-arid wastelands. The report by Endelevu Energy on jatropha in Kenya projected a much lower maximum yield in very dry areas of 0.86 kg per tree, which relates to 1.4 t ha−1 year−1 if 1,600 trees are planted ha−1(GTZ 2009b). A recent report that combined literature of jatropha related studies includes a range of verified observed data of 0–2.5 t ha−1 year−1 (van Eijck et al. 2010). The yield is determined largely by the input system. Low input systems will generate a yield in the lower ranges (like the GTZ study), whilst intermediate and high input systems will generate yields closer to the maximum. According to Nielsen (2009a), the growth of jatropha follows an S-shaped curve with slow growth in the beginning, an increased growth in later years levelling off towards the end. And according to observations of Nielsen (2009a) and van Eijck et al. (2011) maximum yield under poor conditions can be reached as late as in year 8. However, this is greatly influenced by climate conditions. The report by van Eijck et al. (2010) furthermore concluded that scientific data related to cultivation practices and yields is still lacking. Often yields are published without additional information like plant spacing, rainfall data, soil condition, fertiliser application and composition, and other specific agronomic data. Partly due to this reason, cultivation management techniques are still not optimised for local conditions in the regions where jatropha is grown. Although there is no doubt that considerable yields can be obtained from older stands of jatropha (15 years and older) planted in very wide spacings, it is unclear how long this will take when jatropha is planted commercially. This is a crucial limiting factor in the determination of the potential for jatropha.

3


3.3

31

Labour Requirements

The total manual labour requirements for jatropha cultivation and harvesting were investigated by several studies as shown in Table 3.1. The total number of labour days varies with the input system and the production year. It is between 17 and 107 days ha−1 year−1 or 34–214 US$ ha−1 year−1 (with a labour rate of 2 US$ day−1) (van Eijck et al. 2011). The major time consuming task in the cultivation of jatropha is harvesting, until now done manually. Depending on the density of jatropha cultivation, one person can harvest on average around 40 kg seeds per day. Data from 12 jatropha sites showed that when jatropha seeds are picked from fences or ‘wild’ jatropha, the total amount of seeds that can be picked per day is on average 20–30 kg, whilst plantations that are well maintained could make it possible to pick 40–60 kg per day (FACT Foundation 2009). Empirical evidence in Mozambique suggests that one person can collect seeds at 8–24 kg per day or 1–3 kg per hour, assuming an 8 h working day, including dehulling, and 40 kg per day or 5 kg per hour without dehulling (Nielsen 2009b). This shows the relatively large labour requirement for dehulling. Electrical and manually operated dehullers are developed, though usually dehulling takes place at the field. Mechanised harvesting systems are under development, but are problematic, because both ripe and immature seeds as well as flowers grow simultaneously at the shrubs (Jongschaap et al. 2007). This could reduce yields. Mechanised harvesting systems are nevertheless being developed, but will most probably not be feasible for smallholders. However, several harvesters have been developed and are being tested. Mechanical harvesters have not been optimised yet, but one example that is on the market (BEI harvester) can harvest 1.5 ha per hour. The labour requirement for jatropha is significantly reduced by approximately 40% if mechanised harvesters are used. Other tasks that require labour occur mostly in the initial stages of jatropha cultivation. Field preparation and planting for example only have to be executed once in the lifetime of jatropha. Weed control is especially important during the first years of establishing the plantation (Loos 2008; Mitchell 2008).

Table 3.1 Labour requirements for jatropha cultivation and harvesting Days ha−1 year−1 Details 70 From year 6 onwards 200 First year 50 Year 2+ 91–107 First year 17–82 Year 2+ (low or intermediate input system)

Source Jongschaap et al. (2007) Francis et al. (2005) van Eijck et al. (2011)

32

J. van Eijck et al.

Table 3.2 Prices paid for jatropha seeds reported by various studies Price per kg Country Type of project (US$) Details Tanzania Outgrowers (2008) 0.07 Guaranteed price to farmer Tanzania Outgrowers (2009) 0.08–0.17 0.08 US$ is guaranteed Tanzania Small farmers 0.08–0.25 For soap production

Mozambique

3.4

Small-scale

0.08–0.18

0.18 US$ is paid to participating farmers, 0.08 US$ to other farmers

Study Struijs (2008) van Eijck (2009) Messemaker (2008), Altenburg et al. (2009) Nielsen (2009b)

Price of Jatropha Seeds

Jatropha oil is an alternative for fossil diesel and therefore from a market perspective, jatropha oil has to be competitive with diesel fuel. Jatropha oil can also be used for soap production, but that market is relatively small. Jatropha oil (Straight Vegetable Oil or SVO) can be chemically modified by the transesterification process to obtain jatropha biodiesel. However, this will increase the costs, especially at small-scale. The focus of this chapter is on SVO. The consumer price of jatropha SVO is determined by the costs of feedstock, transport, processing and potential taxes. For feedstock, around 4 kg of seeds are needed per litre oil. The conversion will add around 0.20 US$ per litre to the total expenses, based on motor press costs in Zimbabwe (Openshaw 2000). Average fossil diesel prices in Africa (in 2008) are around 1 US$ per litre (GTZ 2009a). Therefore, without transport costs or taxes, the maximum feedstock price could amount to 0.80 US$ l−1 or 0.20 US$ kg−1. But, as transport expenses have to be taken into account as well, current prices paid for seeds are between 0.06–0.20 US$ kg−1 (see Table 3.2). The prices paid for jatropha seeds could increase in the future if the oil price rises, production systems become more efficient and cost effective, e.g. by increased yields, optimising the value of the by-products, and by establishing more efficient transport systems.

3.5

Business Models

Various business models can be applied for the production of jatropha. A possible distinction is made by Altenburg et al. (2009) who discusses a government-centred model (cultivation on communal and government land), a farmer-centred model (cultivation on private land) and a corporate-centred model (large-scale cultivation). Furthermore, a farmer-centred model can have different business models as described by Vermeulen and Cotula (2010) and Bijman et al. (2009). Bijman et al.

3


33

differentiate the following farmer-centred systems: (1) centralised model (processor sources from a large number of (small) farmers), (2) nucleus estate model (processor sources from farmers and own production facilities) and (3) multipartite model (joint venture between the state, a private company and farmers). The last model allows a state agency to provide technical support and inputs whilst the processor guarantees market access. In this way the risks and expenses are divided between the state and private companies. This model is implemented and tested in India, for example by the use of Rural Business Hubs or the Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (GRAIN 2008). Which business model is applied depends on local circumstances and project goals. Sometimes practical issues determine the choice of business models. In Mozambique, a project designed for the energy needs of local people decided to press the seeds at a central location because quality control was only feasible with larger quantities. It made transport expenses higher and seedcake could not be returned to farmers easily (Nielsen 2009b). In Tanzania similar factors contributed to the decision to establish a central processing unit (van Eijck 2009). In this chapter two business models are highlighted, namely the “farmer-centred model” and the “corporate-centred model”. As the name of the corporate-centred model is not regarded sufficiently clear, the term “plantation model” is applied in this chapter.

3.5.1

Farmer-Centred Model

Farmer-centred models are also called contract farming models or outgrowers models. Production is done by cultivation of biofuel crops on family owned land and family operated farms aimed at self-sufficiency with respect to the production of food. Bijman et al. (2009) analysed contractual arrangements for jatropha smallholders in Mozambique. They state that the transaction costs between farmers and jatropha processors are high, thereby increasing risks. This is due to the long time lag between planting and harvesting, the lack of knowledge and experience as well as access to inputs and supporting services. Processors also risk abuse of inputs (if provided) and sideselling of the crop. Finally, formal contractual arrangements were found to be potentially difficult to maintain due to weak property rights enforcement (Bijman et al. 2009). Organising farmers in a group facilitates access of the members to credit schemes and makes the implementation of trainings easier. Farmer clubs are for example set up in Mozambique (Nielsen 2009b). The advantage of outgrower models is that start-up costs are less than for large-scale corporate models, as no land has to be acquired before start-up. Land acquisition is often very politically sensitive (see Sect. 3.6). Experiences from setting up farmer-centred models (outgrower network) show clear benefits for local people. However, such models are very time consuming, as it takes effort to convince outgrowers, requires adequate funding to cover for the long pay back period. In addition, market distortions reduce reliability of feedstock

34

J. van Eijck et al.

supply (van Eijck 2009). Finally, in outgrowers systems the distances are an important factor as certain regions may be more easily accessible than others (e.g. due to bad infrastructure), and hence, transport costs can be high.

3.5.2

Plantation Model

Large-scale operations are characterised by the use of large areas of land and advanced crop management techniques in combination with wage labourers. Large demand for biofuel drives investors to use large-scale corporate models. But a number of companies that applied this model have currently financial problems or went bankrupt. Part of these problems may be explained by the financial crisis in 2009, but another part could be explained by inflated yield figures and a lack of long-term funding. For example, a jatropha company in Tanzania, that requested 8,000 ha of land, spent 3 years to complete the land acquisition process (Gordon-Maclean et al. 2008; FAO 2010). In Tanzania at least one plantation company went bankrupt (Bioshape) and another in Mozambique (Energem). So far, to the authors’ knowledge, no successful large-scale jatropha plantations exists producing commercial amounts of jatropha seed. Thus, it will take a few more years before this model can proof its suitability for jatropha. Today, large plantations are being developed, for example 160,000 ha in Kenya (Christian 2010). Senegal aims at the development of approximately 300,000 ha jatropha plantations in 2012 (Ministry of Agriculture Senegal 2007).

3.5.3

Comparison Between the Farmer-Centred and the Plantation Models

The financial viability of jatropha varies with the business model used. A large influencing factor is the value of the by-products. Without the use of by-products, the jatropha system is currently hardly economical. This is also true as current yields are relatively low. More research is required to develop agronomic practices and plants with higher yields. For plantation models, the high initial investment and the relatively long time before cash is generated, involves cash flow risk. A farmercentred system does not have these high initial costs, but providing training and extension services is rather costly and time consuming. The price of seeds determines the price of jatropha oil which in turn should be competitive with fossil diesel to ensure local markets. Jatropha oil is currently not viable as commercial substitute for fossil diesel. Carbon credits can help investors to obtain additional revenues, but not many initiatives have yet been successfully. In farmer-centred models transport expenses are important. The size of the plantations has high impacts on the region. In the south of Tanzania for example, a large-scale plantation of 80,000 ha expected to employ 10,000 people.

3


35

If minimum wages of 65 US$ per month would be considered, a total of 156 million US$ would be paid to local employees over a period of 20 years. This is a higher number compared to farmer-centred business models. For example, if seeds are bought from local communities at a factory gate price of 0.17 US$, this price accounts for 0.08 US$ paid to farmers, around 0.03 US$ commission to collectors, and around 0.06 US$ to local transport. All these payments are done at local level, creating a total money flow of around 72 million US$ in 20 years, if 80,000 tons of seeds from 80,000 ha are considered. This means 80,000 farmers (if the average size is 1 ha) will have an additional income of around 80 US$ per year. So, although the total amount of money brought into local communities is less in farmer-centred business models, it reaches more people. Furthermore, farmer-centred models can provide additional sources of income for smallholders including the use of by-products as energy, food or wood-fuel (Achten et al. 2007; Achten et al. 2010).

3.6

Socio-Economic Impacts Related to Business Models

Many different studies have been published that list potential socio-economic impacts. Since many projects are still in early phases, the long-term effects are not yet clear. This chapter addresses food security, local prosperity, land rights, and gender issues based on the review of literature analysing existing projects.

3.6.1

Food Security

Food security impacts are difficult, if not impossible, to determine at project level. It is influenced by a variety of factors such as food availability, food access, food utilisation and food stability (UN 2008). Food availability relates to the crop production whilst food access relates to food prices and income level. The other two factors are less directly linked to the production of biofuels. Food utilisation relates to the ability of the population to absorb nutrients and food stability relates to events that can cause reduced access to food such as conflicts, disasters, etc. A study by FAO investigated the linkages between biofuel crop production and food security in Tanzania and found no significant negative impact (FAO 2010). The largest contributor to food insecurity in Tanzania is the currently low agricultural yields. It was concluded that even a slight increase of current yields will offset any effect on food security. Furthermore, FAO also emphasised the welfare gains from additional income and employment. Food security can, however, be negatively impacted when the cultivation of food crops is replaced by jatropha. This so far only happened in two cases, namely in Honduras and Brazil (Ariza-Montobbio and Lele 2010; Finco and Doppler 2010). In Brazil, a company that worked with contract farmers, promoted the cultivation as monoculture. When this company faced financial problems, the market could no longer be guaranteed and the farmers lost income

36

J. van Eijck et al.

and land availability, leading to a loss of food security. Such problems can be avoided if markets for jatropha seeds are well established with a variety of competing market actors. However, such cases show that converting areas used for food production can have negative impacts on food security and should therefore be avoided.

3.6.2

Local Prosperity

Local prosperity is determined by the benefits of the local population, either income or non-financial benefits like access to energy, capacity building and education. Especially the availability of jatropha oil for local communities and its use in special equipment has positive effects. If jatropha seeds are processed and the products are used locally, energy access levels can be increased. Jatropha production and processing offers opportunities for a wide variety of products that can be used locally: • • • • •

Soap Seedcake for biogas Oil for special stoves Oil for special lights Electricity by using oil in adapted generators

For domestic purposes, jatropha oil could mainly be used as cooking fuel in adapted cooking stoves, and as lighting source in adapted lamps. Another use is in electricity generators, potentially connected to a local electricity grid. However, to date only few stoves and lamps have been developed which are working properly with jatropha SVO. As SVO has a higher viscosity than fossil diesel or kerosene, it can not be used in standard equipment. Employment levels vary according to the business model used. Plantations normally generate more direct labour; whilst farmer-centred models reach more people. Arndt et al. (2009) compared outgrower and plantation models, and concluded that the outgrower (smallholder) approach is more pro-poor. This is due to the differences in labour and capital intensity. Outgrower approaches use more unskilled labour resulting in technology spillovers. This result is supported by FAO claiming that all biofuel production scenarios improve household welfare and local prosperity, but small-scale outgrower schemes, especially for cassava and jatropha, are most effective at raising poorer households’ incomes (FAO 2010). Skills and attitudes are other important determinants of local prosperity. Technological spillovers ensure capacity building and lead to increased yields. However, financial problems (e.g. difficulties in cash flow), as currently experienced by some jatropha companies, can have a negative impact. In Mozambique, it has been reported that the bankruptcy of a jatropha company has led to decreased trust of people (Schut et al. 2010a). This is a negative change in attitude by local communities that has to be avoided. Thus, taking precautions and developing clear exit strategies should be part of a project design. A gradual scaling up of the organisation

3


37

could lead to a more sustainable operation. It will enable local communities to absorb the changes, and in case of displacement of people will have less sudden impacts. It will also allow time for internal learning process.

3.6.3

Land Rights

Land conflicts are very common in Africa. In most cases land can only be leased, but lease times can be as long as 99 years (Tanzania). In plantation models, it is required to acquire land titles whereas for farmer-centred models this does not apply. Reoccurring issues when obtaining administrative land rights of large plots of land are: previous land use, compensation and transparency. Even though land may be registered as unused, local communities often obtain fuel and fodder from these areas or use it for grazing cattle. Furthermore, if previous land use was forest, converting this biomass into jatropha will generate a carbon debt. The carbon sequestered by jatropha will not necessarily offset this effect, depending on the density of the forest (Romijn 2010). Secondly, compensation paid to local communities for land acquisition is difficult since the determination of the land value is a complicated issue. Often the villagers are satisfied with any amount, because the land was not generating income before (Cotula et al. 2009). Land administration processes take very long time, in one case in Tanzania it was reported to take 3 years (Gordon-Maclean et al. 2008; Sulle and Nelson 2009). Transparency is often lacking and in some cases investors by-pass official (often very unclear) procedures. Promises made by investors often are not laid down in written agreements, which, in addition, are rarely in local language. This aspect does not only apply for jatropha, but in general for land acquisition processes. Neutral brokers serving as a liason between investor and community can help creating good deals for the community and a clear understanding on both sides. In Mozambique it has been observed that infrastructure was developed by jatropha investors leading to an improvement of the situation of the local population. In farmer-centred systems, land issues have less direct impacts. It has been reported, however, that in some cases the situation of vulnerable groups deteriorated, mostly caused by land pressure (Salfrais 2010). It is important to investigate the situation of land pressure before promotion of jatropha systems. But, on smaller scales, planting jatropha as fences can help to reduce land boundary conflicts (Salfrais 2010).

3.6.4

Gender

Gender issues for jatropha have not been investigated in great detail so far. Harvesting jatropha is normally done by women. More technical tasks, such as driving tractors and processing, are usually executed by men. However, the impact of a labour force of e.g. 10,000 (mainly women) workers, is unclear. Women could as well be trained

38

J. van Eijck et al.

for higher skilled jobs. In one case in Mozambique, it was observed that favourable working hours at the plantation enabled women to keep tending their household plots where they often cultivate food crops for their own consumption (Peters 2009). The availability of jatropha oil for domestic use (cooking and lighting) could benefit especially women.

3.7

Conclusion

The jatropha sector is not yet fully developed. Therefore it is difficult to assess the actual potential or long-term effects. Several projects demonstrate that jatropha can contribute to rural development, particularly when jatropha was present in the region and income is generated by selling seeds. Other projects have demonstrated that it is possible to establish jatropha in dry areas. However, some jatropha projects have failed financially due to different reasons including the lack of sufficient experience to compile a solid and accurate business plan. As no company is producing commercial quantities of jatropha oil it is currently difficult to determine the actual economic viability of jatropha production. Large-scale plantations will have larger negative impacts on biodiversity and land rights, but larger positive effects on employment and the local economy. Large-scale projects require gradual implementation to avoid sudden and large effects on the local environment, economy and population. Farmer-centred models have less negative effects on biodiversity and land rights. Employment levels are lower, but reach more people and are generally considered to be more pro-poor. Jatropha can clearly have benefits for local communities, especially when energy access is increased. This can be done by using jatropha oil or seedcake in special equipment for lighting or cooking. Jatropha will have a positive environmental effect when planted as additional crop, but not when natural vegetation is cleared. It can help to reduce soil and wind erosion. More research is required on agronomic practices to ensure increased yields. Since it is a perennial crop and since agronomic research is time consuming, it is expected to take at least 5 years before better genotypes are available. Finally, long-term effects on food security, local prosperity and gender have to be monitored. In order to minimise impact on food security, it should be avoided to replace food crops with jatropha.

References Achten WM, Mathijs E, Verchot L, Singh SP, Aerts R, Muys B (2007) Jatropha bio-diesel fueling sustainability? Biofuel Bioprod Bior 1(4):283–291 Achten WMJ, Verchot L, Franken YJ, Mathijs E, Singh VP, Aerts R, Muys B (2008) Jatropha bio-diesel production and use. Biomass Bioenerg 32(12):1063–1084 Achten WMJ, Maes WH, Aerts R, Verchot L, Trabucco A, Mathijs E, Singh VP, Muys B (2010) Jatropha: from global hype to local opportunity. J Arid Environ 74(1):164–165

3


39

Altenburg T, Dietz H, Hahl M, Nikolidakis N, Rosendahl C, Seelige K (2009) Biodiesel in India, Value chain organisation and policy options for rural development, vol 43, Studies. German Development Institute (Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik), Bonn Ariza-Montobbio P, Lele S (2010) Jatropha plantations for biodiesel in Tamil Nadu, India: viability, livelihood trade-offs, and latent conflict. Ecol Econ 70(2):189–195 Arndt C, Benfica R, Tarp F, Thurlow J, Uaiene R (2009) Biofuels, poverty, and growth: a computable general equilibrium analysis of Mozambique. Environ Dev Econ 15:81–105 Behera SK, Srivastava P, Tripathi R, Singh JP, Singh N (2010) Evaluation of plant performance of Jatropha curcas L. under different agro-practices for optimizing biomass – a case study. Biomass Bioenerg 34(1):30–41 Bijman JM, Slingerland M, van Baren S (2009) Contractual arrangements for smallholders in biofuel chains: a case study of Jatropha in Mozambique. VII international PENSA conference, Sao Paulo, Brazil Christian C (2010) Natural oil discovered in “diesel tree”. Fort McMurray Today. Fort McMurray Cotula L, Vermeulen S, Leonard R, Keeley J (2009) Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa. IIED/FAO/IFAD, London/ Rome Dornburg V, van Vuuren V, van de Ven G, Langeveld H, Meeusen M, Banse M, van Oorschot M, Ros J, van de Born GJ, Aiking H, Londo M, Mozaffarian M, Verweij P, Lysen E, Faaij A (2010) Bioenergy revisited: key factors in global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environ Sci 3:258–267 FAO (2010) Bioenergy and Food Security. The BEFS analysis for Tanzania. Environment and natural resources management working paper 35. Maltsoglou I and Khwaja Y, Rome, FAO, p 240 Fermont AM, van Asten PJA, Tittonell P, van Wijk MT, Giller KE (2009) Closing the cassava yield gap: an analysis from smallholder farms in East Africa. Field Crop Res 112(1):24–36 Finco MVA, Doppler W (2010) Bioenergy and sustainable development: the dilemma of food security and climate change in the Brazilian savannah. Energ Sust Dev 14(3):194–199 Foundation FACT (2009) The Jatropha handbook. FACT foundation, Eindhoven Francis G, Edinger R, Becker K (2005) A concept for simultaneous wasteland reclamation, fuel production, and socio-economic development in degraded areas in India: need, potential and perspectives of Jatropha plantations. Nat Resour Forum 29:12–24 GEXI (2008) Global market study on Jatropha. London, Berlin, GEXI LLP Gordon-Maclean A, Laizer J, Harrison PJ, Shemdoe R (2008) Biofuel industry study, Tanzania: an assessment of the current situation. Tanzania & Sweden, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) GRAIN (2008) Agrofuels in India, private unlimited. GRAIN’s Quarterly Magazine: Seedling April 2008:15–23 GTZ (2009a) International fuel prices 2009, 6th edn. GTZ, Eschborn GTZ (2009b) Jatropha reality-check, a field assessment of the agronomic and economic viability of Jatropha and other oilseed crops in Kenya, study conducted by Endelevu Energy, World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya Forestry Research Institute Heller J (1996) Physic nut: Jatropha curcas L, Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. International Plant Genetic Resources Insitute, Rome Hoogwijk MA, Faaij A, Eickhout B, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (2005) Potential of biomass energy out to 2100, for four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenerg 29(4):225–257 IAC (2004) Realizing the promise and potential of African agriculture. InterAcademy Council, Amsterdam IFAD, FAO, Brittaine R, Lutaladio N (2010) Jatropha: a smallholder bioenergy crop, the potential for pro-poor development, vol 8, Integrated crop management. FAO, Rome Jongschaap REE, Corré WJ, Bindraban PS, Brandenburg WA (2007) Claims and facts on Jatropha curcas L. Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen Loos TK (2008) Socio-economic impact of a Jatropha-project on smallholder farmers in Mpanda. Thesis, Hohenheim, Tanzania

40

J. van Eijck et al.

Marrison CI, Larson ED (1996) A preliminary analysis of the biomass energy production potential in Africa in 2025 considering projected land needs for food production. Biomass Bioenerg 10(5–6):337–351 Messemaker L (2008) The green myth? Assessment of the Jatropha value chain and its potential for pro-poor biofuel development in Northern Tanzania. Thesis, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht Ministry of Agriculture Senegal (2007) New orientation for the Agriculture Sector Policy, REVA Plan, Special Biofuels Program. March 2007, ENDA, Energy, Environment, Development Biofuels in Senegal Jatropha Programme. 2007–2012 Mitchell A (2008) The implications of smallholder cultivation of the biofuel crop, Jatropha curcas, for local food security and socio-economic development in northern Tanzania. Thesis, Anthropology and Ecology of Development, University of London Mwangi WM (1996) Low use of fertilizers and low productivity in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 47(2):135–147 Nielsen F (2009a) Trip report: FACT/ADPP project Mozambique Nielsen F (2009b) Jatropha curcas oil production for local development in Mozambique. African Crop Sci Conf Proc 6:71–75 Openshaw K (2000) A review of Jatropha curcas: an oil plant of unfulfilled promise. Biomass Bioenerg 19(1):1–15 Peters F (2009) Socio-economic impact study of biofuel plantation on farm households in Mozambique. Thesis, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University Romijn HA (2010) Land clearing and greenhouse gas emissions from Jatropha biofuels on African Miombo Woodlands. Energy Policy In Press, Corrected Proof Salfrais N (2010) Small is beautiful? The impacts of small-scale bio fuel production on people’s access to land in the Koulikoro Region, Mali.Thesis, Geosciences, Utrecht University Schut M, Slingerland M, Locke A (2010a) Biofuel developments in Mozambique. Update and analysis of policy, potential and reality. Energy Policy 38(9):5151–5165 Schut MLW, Bos S, Machuama L, Slingerland MA (2010b) Working towards sustainability. Learning experiences for sustainable biofuel strategies in Mozambique. Wageningen University and Research Centre, Netherlands, in collaboration with CEPAGRI, Mozambique, Wageningen, p 103 Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bioenergy potentials to 2050. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33(1):56–106 Struijs, J (2008) Shinda Shinda, Option for sustainable bioenergy: a Jatropha case study. Bilthoven, RIVM (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) Sulle E, Nelson F (2009) Biofuels, land access and rural livelihoods in Tanzania. L. Cotula, London Tewari D (2007) Jatropha and Biodiesel. Ocean Books Ltd, New Delhi Trabucco A, Achten WMJ, Bowe C, Aerts R, van Orshoven J, Norgrove L, Muys B (2010) Global mapping of Jatropha curcas yield based on response of fitness to present and future climate. GCB Bioenerg 2(3):139–151 UN (2008) Energy security and sustainable development in Asia and the Pacific. Environment and Development Division (EDD), United Nations ESCAP, Bangkok van Eijck J (2009) Case study: the smallholder model of biofuel production in Tanzania, Commissioned by GTZ and ProBEC van Eijck J, Romijn H (2008) Prospects for Jatropha biofuels in Tanzania: an analysis with Strategic Niche Management. Energy Policy 36(1):311–325 van Eijck J, Smeets E, Faaij A (2011) The economic performance of Jatropha, Cassava and Eucalyptus production systems for energy in an East African smallholder setting. Submitted to Agricultural Systems van Eijck J, Smeets E, Jongschaap R, Romijn H, Balkema A (2010) Jatropha assessment; agronomy, socio-economic issues and ecology, facts from literature. Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Eindhoven University of Technology and Wageningen PRI, Utrecht Vermeulen S, Cotula L (2010) Making the most of agricultural investment: a survey of business models that provide opportunities for smallholders. IIED, FAO, IFAD, SDC, London, Rome, Bern

Chapter 4

Small-Scale Production of Jatropha in Zambia and its Implications for Rural Development and National Biofuel Policies Thomson Sinkala and Francis X. Johnson

Abstract Concerns about energy security and the need to promote rural development have been key factors in the promotion of biofuels in many developing countries in Africa. At the same time, the low cost of labour and plentiful land in some regions of Africa has motivated many foreign investors to set up biofuels schemes that are aimed at export markets. Small-scale production of biofuels in a Least Developed Country (LDC) such as Zambia offers a potentially more viable alternative, or in some cases a complement, to large-scale schemes. The lower capital investment required and the fact that households and communities can use by-products allows for value-added at the local level. The case of jatropha exhibits a number of benefits if there is a willingness to experiment with various production schemes and develop different products. In this chapter small-scale jatropha production in Zambia is assessed using a case study at Thomro farms. The relation of small-scale schemes to national priorities and policies is reviewed and the future role of jatropha at local and national levels is discussed. Keywords Jatropha • Zambia • Agriculture • Household energy • Household economy • Co-products • Rural development • Biofuels • Energy policy • Family farm • Small-scale production

T. Sinkala (*) Thomro Biofuels, Lusaka, Zambia e-mail: [email protected] F.X. Johnson Stockholm Environment Institute, Kräftriket 2B, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]


41

42

4.1

T. Sinkala and F.X. Johnson

Introduction

Bioenergy and its associated co-products can be a valuable part of the sustainability transition in developed and developing countries alike. New emerging markets can contribute to agricultural and rural development, energy security and environmental restoration. When practised at small scale in the context of rural households, bioenergy crops can improve household and community economies and contribute to social stability and lower migration to crowded urban centres. Small-scale bioenergy schemes can offer an alternative to large-scale bioenergy and liquid biofuels, which have raised a variety of environmental and social concerns, such as displacement of food crops and land degradation. Zambia is a country with a significant amount of land and resources per capita, but still suffers from high levels of poverty in rural areas. At the same time, it has no domestic fossil fuels and must devote a large share of its foreign exchange to oil imports. As a landlocked country, Zambia faces even higher costs than some of its neighbours in getting its products to and from markets, thereby further increasing energy costs (Johnson and Matsika 2006). With rising oil prices in recent years, biofuels have emerged as a means for Zambia to reduce its dependency on imported oil. Those biofuel crops that can provide a variety of other products and services in addition to energy are especially appealing in some developing countries where the co-products can displace imports, generate cash revenue and exports, and improve health and life quality in rural areas. Amongst the biofuel crops that have received special attention in Zambia is Jatropha curcas, an oil-bearing plant that can grow in a variety of tropical and sub-tropical climates and provides many co-products, which are often valuable for rural communities. This chapter looks at the case of jatropha in Zambia and examines how small family-based farms can benefit from its cultivation. Such local uses and markets are generally quite distinct from, although not necessarily in conflict with, the role envisioned for jatropha as part of Zambia’s national energy policies and biofuels strategies. The linkages, synergies and conflicts across different scales and applications are explored in this chapter through special reference to a case study from Thomro farms in Zambia.

4.2

Energy Markets and Policies in Zambia

In Zambia, the major sources of energy include fuel-wood, hydropower, and petroleum. Fuel-wood accounts for about 70% of the nation’s energy needs whilst hydropower contributes about 14%. The estimated hydropower potential in Zambia is 6,000 MW, and the current installed capacity is 1,760 MW. Hydroelectric plants provide 99% of electrical energy, nearly all of which is from the large plants at Kafue Gorge, Kariba North Bank and Victoria Falls (MEWD 2008). Petroleum products account for 12% of the energy mix, all of which is imported.

4

Small-Scale Production of Jatropha in Zambia and its Implications...

43

Zambia’s electricity is consumed mainly by the mines whilst only about 22% of Zambia’s population have access to electricity (Republic of Zambia 2008). The remainder use woodfuel, charcoal and other traditional energy sources for their household energy needs. The charcoal delivered to urban centres is derived from peri-urban areas, resulting in deforestation and associated land degradation. In some provinces, this deforestation is exacerbated by poor agricultural practices, such as slash and burn agriculture and a shifting cultivation method known as citimene. Such approaches, maintained at subsistence levels, have been combined with social distribution methods. However, they can also stifle innovation in improving resource use and creating new livelihoods (Kakeya et al. 2006). In Zambia’s Northern Province, the level of deforestation has been estimated at 200,000 ha per year during the last several decades, which may have contributed to a changing climate and decreased rainfall in the region (Muloshi 2007). By 2006, deforestation had affected more than 4.3 million hectares (35%) of forested land over a period of 40 years, a situation which is unsustainable, even for a sparsely populated country like Zambia. Therefore, without alternative energy and sustainable agricultural practices, both poverty and forest cover loss in Northern Province and in other areas of Zambia will increase. The high levels of poverty will have a negative effect on development, by leading to further inefficiency in the utilisation of natural resources and greater environmental degradation. Considering the large and burdensome fuel import bill in Zambia, lack of indigenous petroleum production and the country’s available vast arable land suitable for growing energy crops, the prospects of local biofuels production in Zambia are considerable. The biofuels industry would not only bring general economic benefits, but could also help to reduce disparities in fuel prices which, until September 2010 when Government issued uniform prices throughout the country, were unfavourable to areas further away from Lusaka and Copperbelt (see Table 4.1). Only 14% of the total arable land of 42 million hectares is currently used for agricultural production. With its considerable land resources, water resources and agricultural land per person (5.79 ha/capita), Zambia could reduce poverty and Table 4.1 National price disparities at fuel pumps across different regions of Zambia (1 US$ = K5000, May 2010) Petrol Diesel Kerosene Provincial capital Kwacha US$ Kwacha US$ Kwacha US$ Kasama 8,390 1.68 7,717 1.54 5,598 1.12 Livingstone 8,030 1.61 7,355 1.47 5,288 1.06 Chipata 8,229 1.65 7,556 1.51 5,460 1.09 Solwezi 7,825 1.57 7,150 1.43 5,111 1.02 Ndola 7,461 1.49 6,786 1.36 4,798 0.96 Lusaka 7,573 1.51 6,898 1.38 4,893 0.98 Kabwe 7,543 1.51 6,868 1.37 4,868 0.97 Mansa 8,252 1.65 7,579 1.52 5,480 1.10 Mongu 8,337 1.67 7,664 1.53 5,553 1.11

44


Table 4.2 Comparison of population, resources, and GDP for selected countries Arable Population land used Country (Million) (%) Zambia 13.0 7 Brazil 201.1 7 USA 310.2 18 S. Africa 49.1 12 France 64.1 33 Switzerland 7.6 10 Germany 82.3 33 Netherlands 16.8 22

Total renewable Area/Person water resources (ha/capita) (km3/capita) 5.79 8.69 4.23 40.94 3.17 9.89 2.48 1.02 1.00 2.95 0.54 7.01 0.43 2.28 0.25 5.34

Population below poverty GDP (1,000 Line (% (year USD/capita) measured)) 1.6 86 (1993) 10.1 26 (2008) 46.5 12 (2004) 10.3 50 (2000) 41.6 6.4 (2004) 64.5 7.4 (2009) 39.8 11 (2001) 47.6 10.5 (2005)

increase its economic wealth. However, as Table 4.2 shows, Zambia not only has low GDP per capita, but also high poverty levels (86%). If Zambia decided to use, for example, 20 million hectares for biofuels, the country would still have available 4.25 ha/capita, which remains higher than any of the countries shown in Table 4.2. In recognition of the future role of biofuels, the National Energy Policy of 2008 included the following goals or measures: • Expansion of the role of biofuels in the national fuel mix • Ensuring security of supply and stable prices of fuels by promotion of biofuels for transport as an alternative to petroleum • Ensuring availability of data and information on market demand, resource assessment and applicability of biofuels • Providing a legal and institutional framework for the biofuels sub-sector • Supporting investment in the biofuels industry through appropriate incentives, standards and research To ensure security of supply and stable fuel prices, Zambian policies promote biofuels for transport as an alternative to petroleum by supporting: • • • •

Cultivation of energy crops Investment in biofuels through appropriate incentives Participation of Zambians in the biofuels industry as shareholders Maintenance of food security and environmental sustainability

The policies also address the fact that traditional biomass energy (fuel-wood, charcoal, agricultural and forestry wastes) forms the largest part of Zambia’s energy mix. To improve the standard of living the policy articulates that there is need to switch from low quality household energy sources to modern energy resources such as electricity, petroleum products, biofuels and biogas.

4


4.3

45

Assessing Feedstock Options in Zambia

A number of feedstocks for biodiesel and bioethanol production were assessed to evaluate their relative contributions towards societal goals. The parameters used to assess target biofuels feedstocks in Zambia include: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Scope of wealth ownership at national and individual levels Appropriate production technology Job creation Resilience against external disturbances Diversity of products Size of investment Market scope Land requirements Water requirements Food security Geographical coverage Environment

These parameters determine the sustainability of the biofuels industry in Zambia including impacts on other sectors. The parameters are briefly explained below and an evaluation matrix is given in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Biofuels feedstock assessment/ranking in Zambia Parameters Jatropha Oil palm Castor Sugarcane Sweet sorghum Cassava Yield (kg/ha) 2,000 5,000 1,500 6,000 4,000 4,500 Wealth ownership 3 3 3 3 3 3 (individual / national)a Production technologya 3 3 2 1 1 1 Job creationa 3 2 3 3 3 3 Resiliencea 3 3 3 3 3 3 Geographical coveragea,b 3 1 3 1 3 2 Environmental damagea 3 3 3 2 3 3 Investmenta,c 3 2 2 1 2 3 Diversity of productsa 3 2 3 2 2 3 Food securitya 3 2 2 1 2 3 Marketa 3 1 3 1 2 2 Land/water requirementa 2 + 3 3+1 2+3 3+1 3+3 3+3 SCORE (Rank) 35 (1) 26 (3) 31 (2) 23 (3) 30 (2) 32 (1) a All parameters (except technology, environmental damage, land, water and investment) have: high = H = 3; average = A = 2; low = L = 1; for technology, environmental damage, land, water and investment, the key is: high = H = 1; average = A = 2; low = L = 3 b Low rank of 1 for geographical coverage for sugarcane and palm oil is due to the fact that growth is limited to areas with sufficient rainfall c Investment requirements depend mainly on scale (sugarcane is highest) but also on whether crop is perennial (e.g. Jatropha)

46


Wealth ownership (individual/nation): It is preferable if the wealth derived from Zambia’s biofuels activities is fully owned and controlled by Zambian citizens. A feedstock which facilitates local ownership would create a base for further developments and promote sustainability of the industry. Appropriate production technology: As Zambia lacks own developments of innovative technologies, it is preferable to target biofuels feedstocks suitable for simple and proven technologies without losing the intended quality of products. This would ensure greater participation and biofuels industry ownership by Zambians. Job creation: Zambia is experiencing high poverty levels and unemployment. Policies should target biofuels feedstocks that create jobs for Zambians, especially in rural areas. This could help to reduce, and perhaps reverse, the migration of rural dwellers to cities. Unemployed urban dwellers could have new opportunities for steady employment on a plantation or the possibility to develop their own small plot or farm. Resilience against external disturbances: There should be a high degree of local production and consumption and few external production inputs to minimise the risk of shocks on Zambia’s biofuels industry due to external pressures or price changes. Diversity of products: Policies should target feedstocks that have more products in addition to liquid biofuels, thereby facilitating low and stable production costs as well as increased business opportunities along the value chain. Size of investment: The smaller the size of initial investment required for biofuels feedstock, the larger the number of Zambians that could become involved. High upfront investment is often the greatest barrier for economic development in Zambia and in LDC in general. Scope of the Market: Many exotic crops and their by-products are targeted towards the export market. It is preferable to promote biofuel feedstocks that can be also used by the grower himself/herself. In good times, growers could use products in the primary (biofuels) business line whereas in bad times they could use products in secondary business lines (own use, local market), thus minimising external shocks. Land requirements: The biofuels programme should preferably target feedstocks with high yield per hectare and requiring low quality of soils. This would reduce land competition and input requirements. Water requirements: It is preferable to target feedstocks that do not require irrigation. This would allow biofuels development further away from water bodies, reduce conflicts over water use and minimise the risk due to droughts. Food security: Policies should target feedstocks that do not compromise food security and do not result in net displacement of land for food production. Geographical coverage: Policies should target feedstocks with broad geographical coverage suitable for many regions of Zambia. This would ensure broader participation and ownership and enhance political stability.

4


47

Environmental Damage: It is preferable to use feedstocks that have low or even net positive environmental impacts. Land, water and other resources must be used prudently to safeguard the interests of future generations. As shown in Table 4.3, jatropha ranks high in many respects and had the highest overall score. It is a plant that favours participation at small-scale, and thus has special benefits for the rural poor with access to land. Consequently, there are already many small-scale participants in the jatropha industry in Zambia.

4.4

Small-Scale Case Study: Thomro Biofuels Farm

Thomro Biofuels’ jatropha plantation is located about 12 km from Lusaka city centre. The jatropha plants cover about 12 ha out of a total of 105 ha. The first plantings were done in 2005/2006 and the plantation used seedlings from various sources in D.R. Congo, Tanzania and Zambia. Some key lessons learned in terms of the overall physical and economic viability of operations at Thomro Biofuels farm are summarised below. The discussion focuses on non-energy products and characteristics, since these are more closely related to local value-added, and can be developed alongside the expected market for biodiesel at national level. Experiences in Kenya, for example, have illustrated the economic risks of focusing on jatropha production only for biodiesel (Endelevu Energy 2009).

4.4.1

Weeding of Jatropha Fields

At the moment, a significant share of the work in the jatropha plantation involves weeding, as grass is probably the worst enemy of jatropha. For weeding, Thomro has used various approaches including: hoes, herbicides, livestock and slashing. Using goats adds economic and ecological value to the plantation operations whilst providing a solution to the weed problem. As Thomro must maintain a maximum number of goats for weeding purposes, the excess goats can be sold, thus earning additional income. Livestock also adds manure to the field during grazing time. The manure from the goat shelter is used for crop production. A 25 kg bag of manure costs 0.6 US$ in the Thomro farm area. In Zambia, a goat costs 16–90 US$ depending on the source, size and breed. The cropping of 10 average size goats of local breed is currently estimated to provide income of 300 US$. Thomro is breeding to increase the number of goats; from the six female and one male goat acquired in 2008, Thomro now has 25 heads of goats (as of September 2010).

4.4.2

Improving Pollination in Jatropha Fields

Jatropha is pollinated by insects. At Thomro Biofuels farm, the insects observed are primarily honey bees and septic flies. To increase the insect life for pollination,

48


Thomro Biofuels has created and installed a trial beehive. Honey produced from jatropha flowers is a high-value product that adds to income. By producing honey with jatropha pollen, bees enhance jatropha fruit production, which leads to higher oil yields per tree and hectare. The harvest from this trial beehive yielded a retail value of 134 US$ of honey. If there was a beehive per each hectare of the 12 ha under jatropha, this would have yielded 1,608 US$. According to Zambia Agribusiness Forum, Zambia has emerged as Africa’s largest exporter of honey and bee products to the European Union and the USA, with supply to those markets projected at 1,000 tons by the end of 2010. Zambia had 50,000 people deriving their livelihood from bee products in 2010. The global market for honey and other products related to honey bees is worth over 200 billion US$. The existence of a global market suggests a large potential to derive synergies between jatropha and bee industries.

4.4.3

Soap Production from Jatropha

At present, Thomro Biofuels is extracting oil from jatropha seeds for soap production whilst the residue cake is being utilised as organic fertiliser for crop production. From one litre of jatropha oil, about six pieces of jatropha soap of 100 g each can be produced. At a retail price of 0.6 US$ each, a litre of jatropha fetches 3.60 US$. This is several times more than the price for a litre of jatropha oil or biodiesel. As Table 4.1 shows, the most expensive price for diesel in Zambia is at Kasama, where diesel costs 1.54 US$. In other countries such as Madagascar (where its main use is for soap-making) the price of jatropha oil is 1.50 US$, thus illustrating the higher value-added that can be obtained where market prices can rise closer to their value relative to alternative uses. The soap market in Zambia is more than 50 million US$ per year. Soap production with jatropha oil has been promoted in Mali, Tanzania and Madagascar where it has gained recognition in the market as an anti-septic natural soap. There is therefore potential for this in Zambia’s market.

4.4.4

Use of the Jatropha Cake

The jatropha cake has relatively high levels of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). Two studies have reported the following nutrient levels: • 6.0% nitrogen, 2.75% phosphorus and 1.0% potassium (Chungu 2007) • 3.2–4.44% nitrogen, 1.4–2.09% phosphorus, 1.2–1.68% potassium (van Eijck 2007). These levels are reasonably high and therefore jatropha cake can be used as organic fertiliser. The increased availability of organic fertilisers in Zambia has the potential to minimise shifting cultivation, leading to a net reduction in deforestation and environmental degradation.

4


4.5

49

Greenhouse Gas Balance for Biodiesel from Jatropha

Zambia has no obligation to reduce its GHG emissions and indeed it is expected that Zambia will increase its emissions. It has a similar ethical right to develop its economy as other Least Developed Countries in their efforts to promote growth and development. Nevertheless, the GHG balance of jatropha biofuels must be taken into consideration, since financing opportunities may be associated with emissions, and also because all countries of the world will have to develop low-carbon paths of development. The main GHG emissions are CO2, CH4 and N2O. CO2 is less problematic with biofuels since most of the CO2 is recycled during plant growth. For example, a full grown jatropha shrub absorbs around 8 kg of CO2 per year, which translates into CO2 sequestration of 20 tons ha−1 year−1, assuming a plantation with 2,500 shrubs ha−1 (Muok and Källbäck 2008). CH4 and N2O are more problematic as they originate from soils, fertilisers, and land clearing or burning. Emissions from cultivated soils associated with fertiliser decomposition and N2O emissions are a main concern due to their high global warming potential (GWP-100). Emissions are highly dependent on soil conditions (moisture, nitrate, etc.) and cultivation practices. N2O emissions associated with biofuels are not different from other land uses, as over 70% of global N2O emissions are associated with agricultural land use (IPCC 2007). The main benefit of jatropha lies in the very low emissions from cultivation, even if land use change is taken into account. The various co-products further improve the GHG balance, offering a competitive advantage of jatropha compared to other first generation biodiesel crops. Assuming technical suitability of jatropha oil, a market which values GHG-performance may thus lead to higher prices. The GHG reduction compared to diesel has been estimated at 68% under the assumptions used in the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED) (Dehue and Hettinga 2008; EC 2009). Looking more broadly at all environmental impacts, biodiesel from jatropha shows both advantages (e.g. saving non-renewable energy) and disadvantages (e.g. acidification and eutrophication) compared to fossil diesel. Therefore, a decision for or against a particular fuel is inevitably subjective in terms of overall lifecycle impacts. Such decisions must be made on the basis of prioritised characteristics (IFEU 2007). If GHG reduction is given the highest priority, then jatropha biodiesel will outperform fossil diesel, unless extensive land use change occurred when the jatropha plantations were set up. In general, an improvement of the impacts of jatropha requires optimisation of the by-product utilisation. Improved by-product use will in some cases depend on centralised production, where the options increase for different by-products. Therefore, local production and use may not be as effective as central production when it comes to GHG reductions (Tomomatsu and Swallow 2007). However, where jatropha biodiesel is used to offset diesel in electricity production in small generators, additional GHG savings are expected due to the efficiencies of local use, i.e. savings in transport and distribution.

50

4.6


Conclusions

Jatropha cultivation for biofuels is linked to both small-scale and large-scale production methods and markets. The example of Thomro Biofuels illustrated the potential chain of products and the associated upstream and downstream industries. The fact that these products have markets at various scales, ranging from internal household consumption to national and international markets, shows that cross-scale effects may be important in this industry and may help to cushion it from external shocks that occur in export-focused agro-industries. The fact that the jatropha industry is open for participation to people from all socio-economic strata, especially in rural communities throughout Zambia, can enhance the ownership and sustainability of the industry. Positive consequences of this ownership include improved household and national economies, food and energy security as well as overall economic development and improved social stability in rural areas. The contribution at national level will depend on how the local markets and small growers are eventually linked to the national biofuels framework, a process that is under development in Zambia.

References Chungu G (2007) Jatropha curcas in Zambia. Presented at the regional Jatropha practitioners networking workshop on small-scale Jatropha farming, Arusha, Tanzania, 8–11 November 2007 Dehue, Hettinga (2008) GHG performance Jatropha biodiesel. Commissioned by D1 oils, Ref no. PBIONL073010. Ecofys reference, 2 June, Utrecht, The Netherlands EC (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC Endelevu Energy (2009) Jatropha reality check – a field assessment of the agronomic and economic viability of Jatropha and other oilseed crops in Kenya. World Agro-forestry Centre and Kenya Forestry Research Institute; GTZ, Germany IFEU (2007) Screening lifecycle assessment of jatropha biodiesel. Report commissioned by Daimler-Chrysler, IFEU, Heidelburg, 11 December IPCC (2007) Fourth Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change. www.ipcc.ch Johnson FX, Matsika E (2006) Bioenergy trade and regional development: the case study of bioethanol in Southern Africa. Energ Sustain Dev X(1):42–54, March 2006 Kakeya M, Sugiyama Y, Oyama S (2006) The citemene system, social leveling mechanism, and agrarian changes in the Bemba villages of northern Zambia: an overview of 23 years of ‘fixed-point’ research. African Study Monographs 27(1):27–38 Muloshi (2007) Impacts of human activities on the climate of Northern Zambia. AIP Conf Proc 923:296, July 23, 2007 MEWD (2008) National Energy Policy. Published by the Ministry of Energy and Water Development (MEWD), Government of the Republic of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia Muok B, Källbäck L (2008) Feasibility study of jatropha curcas as a biofuel feedstock in Kenya. ACTS/PISCES/EXPORTRÅDET, Nairobi Republic of Zambia (2008) National Energy Policy. Published by the Ministry of Energy and Water Development. May 2008

4


51

Tomomatsu Y, Swallow B (2007) Jatropha curcas biodiesel production in Kenya – economics and potential value chain development for smallholder farmers. World Agro-forestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. Working Paper No. 154. http://www.worldagro-forestry.org/downloads/ publications/PDFs/WP15396.PDF van Eijck J (2007) Transition towards Jatropha biofuels in Tanzania? An analysis with Strategic Niche Management, vol 3, African Studies Collection. African Studies Centre, Netherlands, ISBN 978.90.5448.072.3

Chapter 5

Economic Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum in Biofuel Production as a Multi-purpose Crop: The Case of Zambia Clarietta Chagwiza and Gavin Fraser

Abstract Increasing awareness of the environmental damage caused by the existing fossil fuel-based energy system and rising fossil fuel prices explain, in part, the growing interest in renewable energy sources. In March 2008, oil broke through the psychological ceiling of 100 US$ a barrel, and later in early June 2008 rose to 140 US$ on the way to 150 US$. In addition, rising issues on global warming have resulted in the need to consider alternative sources of energy. This also resulted in debates about biofuels in most developing and developed countries. Zambia is faced with an energy crisis from importation of large amounts of crude oil and the high cost of fuel and petroleum products. Sweet sorghum has been flagged as a potential biofuel feedstock in Zambia. This chapter evaluates different varieties of sweet sorghum and identifies production scenarios under which sweet sorghum can be produced in Zambia by the use of Gross Margin Analysis. It also evaluates notable trade-offs in producing sweet sorghum instead of grain sorghum. The results show that identifying high sweet sorghum yielding varieties and optimum production scenarios are important pre-requisites for the successful implementation of the use of sweet sorghum in biofuel production. The results indicate a positive relationship between the yield of sweet sorghum and the production regime. Keywords Biofuel • Economic • Evaluation • Gross Margin Analysis • Multi-purpose • Socio-economic • Sweet sorghum

C. Chagwiza University of Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice, 5700, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] G. Fraser (*) Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]


53

54

5.1

C. Chagwiza and G. Fraser

Introduction

In view of the rising crude oil prices, forecasted shortages of fossil fuels, the need for new income and employment opportunities for rural farmers, biofuels have become a topical issue in Zambia. Furthermore, Hernandez and Reddy (2007) point out that environmental pollution associated with fossil oil use has resulted in increased worldwide interest in the production and use of biofuels. Leigh (2008) highlighted that in March 2008 oil broke through the psychological ceiling of 100 US$ a barrel, and later in early June 2008 rose to 140 US$ on the way to 150 US$. Banda (2007) indicated that Zambia spends in excess of 500 million US$ a year on the importation of crude oil to meet its national demand for fuel, which accounts for 10% of the country’s foreign exchange expenditure and 14% of the national energy requirement (Johnson and Rosillo-Calle 2007). This calls for alternative sources of fuels to cut down on the expenses incurred for importing oil from the developed world. O’Keeffe (2007) indicated that 53% of the petroleum imported to Zambia is channelled into the transport sector. A number of potential crops have been noted, for example maize and sweet sorghum. According to Munyinda (2005), sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) has been recognized as a possible alternative or complementary crop to provide raw material to the sugarcane industry in southern Africa. Sweet sorghum is unique in its agronomic characteristics. Hence, Grassi (2001) considered it a crop of universal value, because it can be grown on all continents, in tropical, sub-tropical, temperate regions as well as in poor quality soils and in semi-arid regions. However, biofuels cause controversy and invoke opposition to their implementation. According to O’Keeffe (2007), serious legitimate social and environmental concerns are raised as to the impact of biofuels, such as fears over deforestation, land consumed by fuel crops to the detriment of food crops, and the quantities of land needed to grow typically low energy density crops, which could lead to the marginalization of small-scale farmers. As one of the alternative sources of energy and a multi-purpose crop, sweet sorghum needs to be assessed in terms of its socio-economic impacts. This pertains to issues like food security, income generation and general improvements of livelihoods of the people in Zambia. Variety selection is an important decision in sweet sorghum production when feed, fuel, food and fibre needs are to be satisfied (Janssen et al. 2010). This chapter seeks to evaluate the different varieties of sweet sorghum in terms of their fresh stem, sugar and grain yields. It also assesses the socioeconomic impacts of sweet sorghum as a multi-purpose crop in Zambia.

5.2

Implications of Using Sweet Sorghum in Biofuel Production

The economic motivation for biofuels is that they are convenient, low cost, domestically produced substitutes for crude oil, a fuel that is getting costlier by the day and is imported from politically volatile regions (Rajagopal and Zilberman 2007). Biofuels

5

Economic Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum in Biofuel Production...

55

have the potential to improve foreign reserves of most countries. By substituting biofuels partially for imported oil, cash-strapped developing countries can invest their scarce capital in their own farms and industries rather than exporting it to wealthier oil-producing nations (ICRISAT 2007). However, biofuels offer a number of pressing issues that need to be addressed before they are fully embraced and commercialized. Producing biofuels on a largescale could require huge areas of land. Many countries, especially in Africa, cannot afford to divert land from food production since this may have negative impact on their food security. Food and biomass require the same resources for production, namely land, water and agrochemicals (Arungu-Olende 2007). Sweet sorghum has a strong pro-poor advantage since it has a triple product potential: grain for human consumption, juice for ethanol, and stillage or bagasse for livestock feed or power generation.

5.2.1

Potential of Sweet Sorghum for Biofuels

Sweet sorghum is similar to grain sorghum and some other energy crops but features more rapid growth, higher biomass production, wider adaptation, and has great potential for ethanol production. Sweet sorghum being a C4 species is more water use efficient and can be successfully grown in semi-arid tropics, where other crops such as maize fail to thrive. Woods (2001) described this as an important factor in drought-prone sugar-producing regions of the world. Another important attribute of sweet sorghum is that even the resource-poor farmers can sustain themselves and realize improved income levels through growing this multi-purpose crop. Munyinda (2005) highlighted that in developing countries like Zambia local biomass production from locally grown crops can cut dependence and cash expenditure on imported fuels, increase community self-reliance, and provide a spur for local job creation and growth. This implies that the cash saved from cutting fuel imports can be used for other social services to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor.

5.2.2

Criticism and Challenges of Sweet Sorghum in Biofuel Production

Despite the benefits from biofuel production using sweet sorghum, developing countries face a number of economic, social and environmental challenges. Dufey (2006) highlighted that the cultivation of energy crops on a large-scale will have very little impact on rural labour due to the issue of economies of scale. Hence, the need for these economies of scale can act as a driver for establishing large-scale cultivation of energy crops, thereby crowding out small farmers’ cultivation. Another challenge in using sweet sorghum juice is the harvest time that is limited to 3–4 months per year and the maintenance of juice stability. A number of reports

56


suggest that juice extraction should occur soon after harvest and processing needs to take place immediately (Gnansounou et al. 2005, Kundiyana et al. 2006, as cited by Veal 2007). Additionally, Gnansounou et al. (2005) indicated that delays in juice extraction results in the deterioration of sugar level in sweet sorghum stalks. Munyinda (2005) argued that the crop has a large drawback, as it is bulky to transport and cannot be stored. In fact, processing has to start within 24 hours after harvesting or sugar will be lost. According to Grassi (2001), one of the most challenging problems to solve for sweet sorghum is to overcome its seasonality problem and the instable characteristics of its fermentable sugars, that require high investments for fast bioethanol production units (~70–90 days).

5.3

Analysis of Findings

Yields (fresh stem and grain) from nine sweet sorghum varieties were assessed under four different production scenarios: (1) small-scale rain-fed, (2) improved rain-fed, (3) improved single-cropping with supplementary irrigation and (4) improved double-cropping with supplementary irrigation. Sweet sorghum varieties investigated include Sima (a local variety), TSI, Madhura, Praj 1, GE 2, GE 3, Wray, Cowley and Keller. Some of the varieties produced substantially higher yields. For example, the variety Wray under the improved double cropping with supplementary irrigation has a stem yield of 136.8 t/ha. In addition, the variety TS1 has a higher grain yield of 14.78 t/ha under the double cropping production scenario. Table 5.1 presents varieties of sweet sorghum with highest fresh stem and grain yields. On average, Wray produced the highest fresh stem yields making this variety suitable for ethanol production. The varieties Praj-1 and GE3 also produced high yields of fresh stems. The varieties TS1 and Praj-1 produced the highest grain yields making these varieties the optimum choice for farmers focusing on food security.

5.3.1

Gross Margin Analysis of Sweet Sorghum for Different Scenarios of Production

A gross margin for an enterprise is its financial output minus its allocable variable costs. The gross margin analysis model has been used to estimate the profitability of cultivation of energy crops per hectare based on the assumptions about yield, output price and cost of production. Mathematically, it is expressed as follows: GROSS MARGIN = Value of Yield − Costs Where: Value of yield = Price × Output Costs = All variable costs

5


Table 5.1 Fresh stem and grain yields 2008) Scenario Variety Small-scale Praj-1 Improved rain-fed Wray Single-cropping GE3 Double-cropping Wray

57

of selected sweet sorghum varieties (Source: Chagwiza Stem yield (t/ha) 13.60 22.82 78.20 136.8

Variety Praj-1 Praj-1 TS1 TS1

Grain yield (t/ha) 1.47 3.57 8.09 14.78

A simulation of four models of production was employed where gross margins for different scenarios of production were calculated in order to identify which scenario Zambia could follow if sweet sorghum were to contribute significantly to ethanol production as well as food security. The framework used was adapted from the study by Cardno Agrisystems Limited (2007) for various major agricultural commodities in Zambia. Gross margins of each sweet sorghum variety under different production scenarios were calculated. For the sake of this study, the farming systems for the production of sweet sorghum in Zambia were divided according to the type of agricultural management practised. Four types identified were: • • • •

Small-scale rain-fed Improved rain-fed Improved single cropping with supplementary irrigation Improved double cropping with supplementary irrigation The gross margin calculations have been based on the following assumptions:

• The opportunity cost (i.e. the value forgone by not using the resources in the most profitable alternative way) of a subsistence farmer is negligible. When a farmer decides to hire labour for a task, costs are incurred in the production system. Following this, the labour costs for the small-scale rain-fed scenario is considered zero. Hence; – 0% hired is assumed for the small-scale rain-fed production system. – 50% hired labour is assumed for improved rain-fed and single crop production system. – 100% hired labour is assumed for double crop production. • An exchange rate of 1 US$ = ZMK 3,360 is assumed. • Due to the fluctuating nature of commodity prices, all prices used are based on July 2008 rates. • A minimum wage (i.e. minimum hourly wage necessary for a person to achieve a specific standard of living) of US$ 1 per hour is assumed in calculating the labour costs. • A cost of 59.50 US$ per 50 kg of both compound “D” and Urea is assumed. • Price of ethanol is 0.45 US$ per litre. Given that Zambia has not yet sold ethanol from sweet sorghum, the US price of ethanol was used as benchmark. • All the parameters (yield and output) were calculated on per hectare basis. • Gross margins do not include transport costs to the processing plant.

58


Table 5.2 Gross margin for high yielding sweet sorghum varieties (Source: Chagwiza 2008) Scenario Total income (US$) Total costs (US$) Gross margin (US$) Small-scale 661 707 (46) Improved rain-fed 1,486 1,132 353 Single-cropping 2,286 1,312 974 Double-cropping 2,572 1,048 1,524

• A price of 357 US$ per tonne of grain is assumed. • Price of sweet sorghum stalks is estimated at 10 US$ per tonne. • Irrigation estimated to be 100 US$ per hectare assuming the same amounts were applied to the single and double cropping production scenarios. From the calculations carried out in Table 5.2 for different production scenarios, the highest gross margin is realized in scenario 4, “improved double-cropping with supplementary irrigation”, followed by scenario 3 “improved single-cropping with supplementary irrigation”. A negative gross margin was realized in the “small-scale rain-fed production” scenario (scenario 1). This shows that if sweet sorghum is to contribute significantly to ethanol production, it has to be produced with supplementary irrigation and not with small-scale rain-fed production systems. An analysis of variation was used to reveal the variation within and between each scenario of production (Chagwiza 2008). The analysis indicates there is a significant influence of production scenario on gross margin. The more advanced the production scenario, the higher the gross margin that can be obtained. The same applies to the total income obtained under each scenario. Therefore, if sweet sorghum is to contribute significantly to biofuel production and a higher gross margin realized, then it should be produced under the double-cropping with supplementary irrigation production scenario. A post-hoc analysis was applied to test the variation in total income and the gross margin in response to the different scenarios of production. Sufficient evidence exists that there is a significant difference in total income under scenario 1 versus scenarios 3 and 4, but insufficient evidence that there is a significant difference on total income between scenarios 1 and 2. There is sufficient evidence to claim that there is a significant difference in gross margin between scenarios 4 and scenarios 1, 2 and 3. This shows that the use of sweet sorghum in biofuel production can be more viable if it is produced at a more advanced management regime, viz. scenario 4.

5.4

Conclusions and Recommendations

It is important to note that the sweet sorghum variety Wray produced high quantities of fresh stems in all four production scenarios. The higher the stem yield, the higher the amount of juice that can be extracted from a given variety. Hence, a variety that produces large amounts of juice has good economic returns when it comes to ethanol production.

5


59

With respect to grain yields, the varieties TS1 and Praj-1 showed the best performance. However, the challenge for plant breeders remains to develop varieties producing high grain and fresh stem yields simultaneously. As evidenced in this research, sweet sorghum has potential as biofuel feedstock. It is important to identify varieties with optimal yields and the type of production regime under which they can best be produced. This chapter has suggested that sweet sorghum cannot be produced under small-scale management regimes due to existing lack of expertise and (capital) resources. Substantially higher yields have been realized under the improved single and double cropping scenarios with supplementary irrigation. Consequently, these production scenarios are economically viable when it comes to bioethanol production since they have indicated positive gross margins. However, if biofuel production is to ensure that the rural poor capture a large proportion of the benefits, small-scale farmers need to be empowered so that they can also participate fully and make a noticeable contribution. This can be done through the establishment of collectives where a number of small-scale farmers join production activities, hence increasing economies of scale, risk-sharing and reducing individual costs. Biofuels could provide developing countries such as Zambia with a means to invest in their own rural areas instead of exporting their capital to purchase fossil fuel from politically unstable environments.

References Arungu-Olende S (2007) Article from a paper presented at a Kenya National Academy of Sciences workshop in Nairobi, Kenya in June 2007. http://forests.org/shared/reader/welcome. Accessed 15 Mar 2008 Banda J (2007) Biofuel - experts in Zambia call for caution, The Times of Zambia. Online: http:// allafrica.com/stories/200702270140.html. Accessed 27 May 2007 CARDNO AGRISYSTEMS LIMITED (2007) Support to agricultural diversification and food security in western and north-western provinces. A final report of an EU funded project Chagwiza C (2008) Economic evaluation of sweet sorghum in biofuel production as a multipurpose crop: case of Zambia. Unpublished M Sc Agric dissertation, University of Fort Hare, Alice Dufey A (2006) Biofuels production, trade and sustainable development: emerging issues, vol 2, Sustainable markets discussion paper. International Institute for Environment and Development, London Gnansounou E, Dauriat A, Wyman CE (2005) Refining sweet sorghum to ethanol and sugar: economic trade-offs in the context of North China. Bioresour Technol 96(9):985–1002 Grassi G (2001) Sweet sorghum: one of the best world food-feed-energy crop. http://www.eubia. org/fileadmin/template/main/res/pdf/publications. Accessed 24 Sept 2007 Hernandez EE, Reddy BVS (2007) Sweet sorghum pilot-sites in the Philippines. http://www. mixph.com/2007/08/sweet-sorghum-pilot-sites-in-the-philippines.html. Accessed 17 Nov 2007 ICRISAT (2007) Why biofuels? Pro-poor biofuels outlook for Asia and Africa: ICRISAT’s perspective. http://www.icrisat.org/Investors/Biofuel.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2007 Janssen R, Rutz D, Braconnier S, Reddy B, Rao S, Schaffert R, Parella R, Zaccharias A, Rettenmaier N, Reinhardt G, Monti A, Amaducci S, Marocco A, Snijman W, Terblanche H, Zavala-Garcia F (2010) Sweet sorghum – an alternative energy crop. Proceedings of the 18th

60


European biomass conference and exhibition, Lyon, France, 3–7 May 2010. ISBN 978-8889407-56-5 Johnson FX, Rosillo-Calle F (2007) Biomass, livelihoods and international trade: challenges and opportunities for the EU and Southern Africa. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm Leigh J (2008) Crude oil price retreat: sunrise or a lull before the storm? Energy Bulletin. http:// energybulletin.net/node/46199. Accessed 14 Aug 2008 Kundiyana D, Bellmer D, Huhnke R, Wilkins M (2006) “Sorganol”: production of from ethanol sweet sorghum, Paper No. 066070, ASAE Annual Meeting, St Joseph, Michigan Munyinda K (2005) Evaluation of sweet sorghum as an alternative bioenergy feedstock. Thesis, UNZA, Lusaka O’Keeffe S (2007) The sustainability of large-scale bioethanol production in Zambia, with a special focus on the potential contribution of sweet sorghum. Unpublished M Sc Thesis, Imperial College, London Rajagopal D, Zilberman D (2007) Review of environmental, economic and policy aspects of biofuels, No. 4341, Policy research working paper. World Bank, Washington DC Veal M (2007) On-farm biofuel production from sweet sorghum juice. http://www.southernsare. uga.edu/winnerfiles/07winners/2007onfarmwinners.htm. Accessed 07 Jan 2008 Woods J (2001) The potential for energy production using sweet sorghum in Southern Africa. Energ Sustain Dev 5(1):31–38

Part II

Biomass Technologies and Markets

Chapter 6

Keynote Introduction: Biomass Technologies and Markets in Africa Dominik Rutz and Rainer Janssen

Abstract Globally, many different biomass technologies for energy production are available. They all have the same general common feedstock, namely biomass which is the organic matter derived from plants and animals, such as agricultural crops, forests, organic wastes, and animal waste. Biomass can be used for different purposes (feed, fibre, food, fuel) including energy production. Bioenergy is the final energy output derived from biomass/feedstock. This includes liquid, gaseous, and solid biofuels which are converted into heat, electricity, light, transportation energy (kinetic energy) and other energy types. In Africa, currently mainly traditional technologies for biomass conversion are used. This includes the use of wood-fuels for cooking. However, also modern technologies are increasingly important in Africa. The present chapter describes different technologies applied or suitable for African framework conditions. It furthermore provides an overview on the existing bioenergy markets in Africa. Keywords Biofuel technologies • Markets • Value-chain • Feedstock • Process • Energy carrier • Energy service

6.1

Introduction

Globally, many different biomass technologies for energy production are available. They all have the same general common feedstock, namely biomass which is the organic matter derived from plants and animals, such as agricultural crops, forest, organic wastes, and animal waste. Biomass can be used for different purposes

D. Rutz (*) • R. Janssen WIP Renewable Energies, Sylvensteinstr. 2, 81369 Munich, Germany e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]


63

64

D. Rutz and R. Janssen

(feed, fibre, food, fuel) including energy production. Bioenergy is the final energy output derived from biomass/feedstock. This includes liquid, gaseous, and solid biofuels which are converted into heat, electricity, light, transportation energy (kinetic energy) and other energy types. In Africa, currently mainly traditional technologies for biomass are used. This includes the use of wood-fuels for cooking. However, also modern technologies are increasingly important in Africa. The present chapter describes different technologies applied or suitable for African framework conditions. It furthermore provides an overview on the existing bioenergy markets in Africa.

6.2

Biomass Value Chains and Options in Africa

In order to assess and evaluate bioenergy technologies, the whole value chain of a bioenergy system has to be considered. Typical bioenergy value chains include biomass production, transport, conversion, and consumption. Along the value chain, different impacts can be measured, such as social, economic and environmental impacts. Value chains and their impacts are mainly influenced by the following four characteristics: • Feedstock type (waste, lignocellulosic material, oily crops, sugar crops, starchy crops, dedicated energy crops, co-products) • Conversion technology (biological, mechanical, thermal, chemical processes) • Intermediate energy carrier type (solid, gaseous, liquid energy carrier) • Energy service (electricity, transport, heat, cooking and lighting) The options for bioenergy in Africa are manifold since the use of biomass is applicable at different scales, under various climatic conditions and under different framework conditions. Bioenergy options in Africa range from small-scale household applications (e.g. wood-fuels for cooking) to large-scale liquid biofuel production for transport. For all scales, different mechanical, thermo-chemical and biological conversion technologies are available. Due to the potential of different bioenergy pathways to substitute other energy sources, bioenergy could be a solution to meet all types of energy needs: cooking, lighting, electricity, heat, and transport, depending on the feedstock and on the technology. Bioenergy options for biomass feedstock, technologies and energy needs in Africa are shown in Table 6.1. Considering the different options listed in Table 6.1, the main criterion for sustainability is related to the feedstock production. Thereby waste material is usually a preferred feedstock source since it avoids land use and other sustainability conflicts, and since it contributes to sustainable waste management practices. Another main criterion to be considered is the efficiency of the systems. Inefficient systems need to be improved. For instance, many African households are still cooking with inefficient three-stone stoves. By improving the stove technology, considerable amounts of wood-fuel could be saved. Furthermore, a general challenge in Africa is

6

Keynote Introduction: Biomass Technologies and Markets in Africa

65

Table 6.1 Traditional and energy needs in Africa Feedstock Non-renewable wood (wood from land where trees/shrubs do not regrow)

potential bioenergy options for biomass feedstock, technologies and Processes Combustion in stovesa Conversion into charcoala,b,c Gasificationc Co-firing in mediumlarge combustion plantsc

Energy carrier Firewooda,b,c Charcoala,b,c

Energy service Cookinga Electricityb,c Process heatc

Renewable wood (wood from sustainable managed forests)

Chippingc,d Pelletisationc,d Combustion in stovesa Conversion into charcoala,b,c Gasificationc Co-firing in mediumlarge combustion plantsc

Woodchipsc,d Pelletsc,d Firewooda,b,c Charcoala,b,c Syngasc,d

Cookinga Electricityb,c Process heatc,d Second gen. biofuelsd

Oil crops (e.g. jatropha, castor, palm oil, ximenia)

Pressinga,b,c,d Transesterification for biodiesel productionc,d

Straight vegetable oila,b Biodieselc,d

Cooking (SVO)a Electricity (SVO, BD)b Transport (SVO, BD)c,d

Waste oil (waste cooking oil, animal fat, fish oil)

Collectionb,c,d Transesterification for biodiesel productionc,d

Straight vegetable oila,b,d Biodieselc,d

Electricity (SVO, BD)b,c Transport (SVO, BD)c,d

Sugar and starch crops (e.g. sugarcane, sweet sorghum, cassava)

Fermentation and destillationc,d Gelingc

Bioethanolc,d Ethanol gelfuelc

Transport (ethanol)c,d Cooking (ethanol and gelfuel)a

Dedicated lignocellulosic energy crops (e.g. acacia, dichrostachys, prosopis, miscanthus, typha)

Chippingc,d Pelletisationc,d Gasificationc,d Hydrolysis, fermentation, distillationd Torrefactiond

Woodchipsc,d Pelletsc,d Charcoalc,d Syngasc,d Pyrolysis oilc,d Torrefied biomassd

Electricityc,d Process heatc,d Second gen. biofuelsd

Manure (manure collected from the field, manure from stables)

Dried manure combusted in stovesa Wet manure for anaerobic digestiona,b,c,d

Dried manure for cookinga Biogasa,b,c,d Biomethanec,d

Cookinga Lightinga Electricity and heatb,c Biomethane in transportd

Dry industrial organic waste (e.g. nutshells, bagasse, rice husks)

Conversion into charcoalc,d Gasificationc,d Hydrolysis, fermentation, distillationd Co-firing in mediumlarge combustion plantsc,d

Dried waste materialc,d Charcoalc Syngasc,d Ethanolc,d FT dieseld

Electricityc,d Process heatc,d Second gen. biofuelsd

(continued)

66


Table 6.1 (continued) Feedstock

Processes

Energy carrier

Energy service

Wet industrial organic waste (e.g. molasse, palm oil mill effluent – POME)

Fermentation and destillationc,d Gelingc Anaerobic digestionc,d

Bioethanolc,d Biogasc,d Biomethaned Ethanol gelfuelc

Transport (ethanol)c,d Cooking (ethanol and gelfuel)a Electricity and heatb,c Biomethane in transportd

Organic solid household waste (organic waste collected from households)

Anaerobic digestionc,d Co-firing in mediumlarge combustion plantsc,d

Biogasc,d Biomethaned Dried wastec,d

Electricity and heat from biogasc,d Biomethane in transportd Electricity and heat from co-firingd

Food waste (e.g. catering waste from restaurants, expired food from supermarkets, spoiled waste)

Anaerobic digestionc,d

Biogasc,d Biomethaned

Electricity and heatc,d Biomethane in transportd

Sewage sludge (from wastewater treatment plants)

Anaerobic digestionc,d

Biogasc,d Biomethaned

Electricity and heatc,d Biomethane in transportd

SVO: straight vegetable oil, BD: biodiesel Italic: This option should be phased out as soon as possible a Application at household level b Application at village level c Application at medium enterprise level d Application at industrial level

the efficiency of the agricultural sector, independently if bioenergy or other uses of agricultural crops are considered.

6.3

Overview of Energetic Biomass Use in Africa

As it is shown in Table 6.1, the value chains are highly influenced by the energy carriers (e.g. charcoal, pellets, biogas, biofuels) which shall be produced. The energy carrier influences the feedstock selection, the conversion technology and the final energy service. Therefore, the following overview of the energetic biomass use in Africa is presented for a variety of different energy carriers.

6.3.1

Charcoal and Firewood

Wood based fuels or so called wood-fuels include firewood and charcoal. In SubSaharan Africa, wood-fuels provide more than 70% of the total energy consumption. The majority of the population depends on wood-fuels because modern energy

6


67

such as LPG, kerosene and electricity are either unavailable or unaffordable (Legros et al. 2009). Firewood for cooking is mainly used in rural areas whereas charcoal is mainly used in urban areas. For instance in Tanzania, more than 80% of the urban population depends on charcoal for their daily cooking (Sawe 2009). Charcoal in urban areas is preferred to firewood mainly since it has a higher calorific value per unit weight and thus can be transported more efficiently over longer distances. Furthermore, it needs less storage room, is more stable to store, and cleaner in combustion. Wood-fuels are used by many African people since they are cheap, available and easy to handle. Thus, they constitute an important energy source for Africa. However, major problems associated with the use of wood-fuels are deforestation, and forest degradation, as well as health and safety issues when used as cooking fuel. In comparison to the rather simple value chain of firewood production and use, the value chain for charcoal is larger and more complex, comprising a wide range of actors and operators with varying interests and stakes (Vos and Vis 2010). Charcoal is produced from biomass (usually wood) by the carbonisation process (slow pyrolysis) which is the conversion of biomass in absence of air, under high temperatures and with long reaction times. This is typically done in batches of 1–5 tons in earth, brick or steel kilns. In Africa charcoal production is often illegal and unregulated causing deforestation at large-scale.

6.3.2

Agricultural and Forestry Residues

One of the current success stories of modern bioenergy implementation in Africa is the use of agricultural residues (bagasse) from the sugar sector in Mauritius for the production of electricity and process heat. Bagasse based co-generation is common practice in the Sub-Saharan sugar industry since many years, however Mauritius was the first country in Sub-Saharan Africa to promote the use of highly efficient high pressure co-generation equipment to increase the production of modern bioenergy. Since the 1990s bagasse based electricity is exported to the national grid. In 2004 the installed co-generation capacity in the Mauritian sugar sector was 242 MW with 318 GWh (16.5% of the electricity consumption in Mauritius) produced from bagasse and 407 GWh (21.2%) produced from coal (Deepchand 2005). Today, the sugar industry in Mauritius is self sufficient in energy and contributing about 50% of the national electricity supply through electricity exports to the grid (Karekezi and Kimani 2010). Co-generation in Mauritius is using bagasse during the harvest season (about 6 months) and coal during the rest of the year. The development of bagasse based co-generation was strongly supported by the government of Mauritius (Karakezi et al. 2008). In 1985, the Sugar Sector Package Deal Act was enacted to encourage the production of bagasse for the generation of electricity. The Sugar Industry Efficiency Act (1988) provided tax incentives for investments in the generation of electricity and encouraged small farmers to provide bagasse for electricity generation. Together with the Bagasse Energy Development Programme (BEDP) of 1991 and the abolishment of sugar export duties in 1994,

68


these measures resulted in a steady growth of bagasse-based electricity production in Mauritius. In addition to the political support another important prerequisite for the success of the sugar cane bagasse based co-generation programme in Mauritius is its effective revenue sharing measures. Thereby, it is guaranteed that the monetary benefits from the sales of electricity are shared between all stakeholders of the sugar value chain including the poor smallholder sugar cane farmers. In recent years several Sub-Saharan African countries have implemented initiatives to follow the Mauritian success story in the use of agricultural residues for energy production. In 2007 the regional initiative ‘Cogen for Africa’ (http://cogen. unep.org), funded by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), was launched in order to significantly scale up the use of efficient cogeneration systems initially in seven Eastern and Southern African countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, Malawi, Sudan, Uganda, Tanzania and Swaziland). Agro-industries that are actively participating in the project include private-sector-owned sugar companies as well as private sector entities involved in agro-processing industries such as pulp and paper, forest products, palm oil, ground nuts, sisal and rice. By February 2011, more than 100 investment opportunities for co-generation projects based on agricultural residues have been identified by ‘Cogen for Africa’. Furthermore, it is estimated based on current sugar production in Sub-Saharan Africa that bagasse based cogeneration from sugar industries can meet about 5% of the total electricity demand in the region (Karekezi and Kimani 2010). Including the residues of other agro-industries and forestry industries about 10% of the electricity could be generated through co-generation. Finally, one of the main advantages making co-generation from agricultural and forestry residues a promising option for modern bioenergy production in SubSaharan Africa is the fact that well established agro-industries and forestry industries have available financial resources in order to implement efficient bioenergy technologies in the short term. Private investment in bioenergy technologies, however, needs appropriate and supportive legal and regulatory frameworks in place providing suitable incentives as well as economically viable access to electricity grids (including reasonable feed-in tariff structures).

6.3.3

Torrefied Biomass

Torrefaction is a thermo-chemical treatment of biomass between 200 and 340°C. Thereby biomass is partly decomposed releasing volatile compounds. Torrefied biomass has approximately 30% more energy content per unit of mass than the biomass feedstock used. Currently, the interest in the use of torrefied biomass especially in large co-combustion power plants is increasing amongst European and North American stakeholders. In Africa, torrefaction could be a suitable technology, but is not yet applied.

6


6.3.4

69

Briquettes, Pellets, and Woodchips

Besides wood-fuels and torrefied biomass, solid biofuels include briquettes, pellets and woodchips. The production and use of these fuels in Africa is still very limited. Biomass briquettes are blocks or balls of compacted small biomass particles. Common briquettes are charcoal and biomass briquettes made from sawdust, carbonised sawdust or waste materials (e.g. charcoal residues, sunflower shells, paper). There are various ways of producing briquettes including mechanical treatment (pressure) and mixing different substances (e.g. waxes, water). The latter technology is promoted mainly for small-scale applications in various development projects. Depending on the process and the input material, the quality of briquettes varies largely. The quality influences the use of the briquettes which can be either used at small-scale (for cooking) or at industrial-scale for large co-combustion facilities. Pellets are generally made from compacted sawdust or other biomass (e.g. straw) that was grinded e.g. in a hammer mill. The pelletizing process is rather industrialised. Pellets are very energy dense with low humidity. Due to their often standardised nature (quality standards exist e.g. in Europe) in size and quality, pellets can be easily traded and marketed. There is an increasing market for pellets in Europe and North America to be used in biomass heating systems at household to medium-size level. In Africa, pellets are currently not used and produced at largescale. However, due to their characteristics, pellets produced in Africa could be easily exported to international markets (e.g. Europe). Woodchips are small pieces of wood resulting from cutting or chipping trees, branches, and other woody material. Woodchips can be used to produce heat and electricity. Although the potential for woodchips in Africa is considerable, the use of woodchips is not yet widely applied.

6.3.5

Biogas and Biomethane

Biogas is produced by anaerobic digestion (AD) which is a microbiological process of decomposition of organic matter (manure, sewage sludge, wet organic waste, energy crops) by microorganisms in the absence of oxygen (Al Seadi et al. 2008). AD is common to many natural environments and largely applied today to produce biogas in airproof reactor tanks and covered lagoons commonly named digesters. Technologies range in scale from domestic systems for thermal (cooking) energy to multi-megawatt grid-connected combined heat and power generation systems, or even systems that inject biomethane (upgraded biogas to < 95% CH4 content) into natural gas grids. A wide range of micro-organisms are involved in the anaerobic process which has two main end products: biogas and digestate. Biogas is a combustible gas consisting of methane, carbon dioxide and small amounts of other gases and trace elements.

70


The methane fraction of biogas can be burned to produce light, electricity and heat. Digestate is the decomposed substrate, rich in macro- and micro nutrients and therefore suitable to be used as fertiliser. In several countries in Europe there is currently a boom in agricultural medium sized biogas plants with an average electrical plant capacity of about 400 kW. Currently, in Germany alone, more than 6,000 biogas plants are in operation. Also in Africa the numbers of biogas installations is increasing, especially for small-scale domestic biogas plants supplying households with energy for lighting and cooking (Austin and Morris 2011). A number of national domestic biogas programmes were set up in Africa each with national targets of over 10,000 domestic systems to be installed in the next 5 years. National programmes in Africa are currently implemented in Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Benin and Burkina Faso (SNV 2010). One of the main advantages of medium to large-scale biogas production is the potential to use wet organic waste materials which are converted to biogas and digestate which can be used as fertiliser. This presents on the one hand large opportunities for Africa, but on the other hand, this depends on the introduction of suitable waste management practices and logistics.

6.3.6

Pure Plant Oil and Biodiesel

A large portion of liquid biofuels can be received from lipid sources such as plant, animal and waste oils (Rutz and Janssen 2008). There exist mainly two types of fuels that are based on lipids: pure plant oil (PPO) and biodiesel obtained from further processing PPO. Feedstock material in Africa is diverse and includes for example jatropha, palm oil, soy, castor, sunflower, coconut, and many other crops (Walimwipi et al. 2011). Also waste cooking oil and animal fats from the rendering or fish industry could be potentially used. In the PPO and biodiesel value chain, the feedstock selection highly affects the quality and the properties of the fuel which influences the potential use. PPO and biodiesel for transport applications must meet high quality standards in order to ensure smooth engine operations. Several African countries have started to introduce national targets and initiatives for the use of biofuels (both biodiesel and bioethanol) in transport, including for example Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe (Walimwipi et al. 2011; Janssen and Rutz 2011). However, many approaches in Africa do not target the use of PPO and biodiesel in transport, but in small-scale stationary power stations for rural electrification. Often, these projects include multifunctional platforms (MFP) for different services. Small-scale projects usually use pure plant oil directly, whereas large-scale projects aim at further processing of the oil into biodiesel. Technologies for the pressing, purification and transesterification processes are mature and available for different sizes and purposes. Biodiesel production can range from small-scale, often batch-production, to large-scale industrial facilities.

6


71

For example in South Africa, several micro- to small-scale biodiesel plants are operated by small fleet owners or home producers using waste oils. A relatively new approach is to produce biodiesel from algae at industrial scale. However, technologies are not yet mature and it is unclear if the algae to biodiesel chain will be commercial in the mid- to long-term. It may be also possible that oils from algae are rather used for chemical purposes instead of bioenergy due to their high production prices. Several areas in Africa may be suitable for the production of algae.

6.3.7

Bioethanol

The use of bioethanol in the energy sector is widely applied today. The main producers of bioethanol are the USA and Brazil and bioethanol is traded internationally. It is mainly produced by fermentation of sugar and starch. Bioethanol can be produced at different scales; however, most facilities are large-scale. The main feedstock today are sugarcane, sugar beets, corn, and wheat. In Africa, the main feedstock is sugarcane, but in recent years much research was put on breeding sweet sorghum varieties for bioethanol production (Munyinda et al. 2011; Chagwiza and Fraser 2011; Janssen et al. 2010). The advantage of sweet sorghum is its higher production efficiency compared to sugarcane and its tolerance to difficult growth conditions (e.g. drought, soil acidity). Other potential feedstock sources in Africa are grain sorghum, cassava, and maize. Also molasses from the sugar industry can be used for bioethanol production. In recent years, many efforts were placed on the production of ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass, so called second generation bioethanol. It is estimated that the technology of second generation bioethanol production is close to commercialisation. Besides waste materials (e.g. bagasse), potential second generation feedstock in Africa could be miscanthus and bamboo (Munyinda et al. 2011). Munyinda et al. (2011) estimated the bioethanol potential in selected African countries for different feedstocks at 35 EJ, with the Democratic Republic of Congo having the largest potential, followed by Angola, Sudan, Zambia and Tanzania. Bioethanol production in Africa was 637 million l in 2007, with the largest production in South Africa, followed by Egypt and Nigeria. A number of African countries have introduced initiatives and targets to promote bioethanol development for transport, including Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. A niche market exists for the use of liquid ethanol and ethanol-gel for domestic use in cooking facilities.

6.3.8

Pyrolysis Oil, Syngas and Other Thermo-Chemical Conversion Products

Lignocellulosic biomass can be converted by thermo-chemical processes into various valuable intermediate products, including syngas, pyrolysis oil, char, and slurry

72


(mixture of char and pyrolysis oil). The desired product is influenced by the reactor design and several parameters, such as the temperature, reaction time, reaction agent, and pressure. Suitable feedstock are all types of dry lignocellulosic materials such as waste materials (e.g. rice husks, nutshells, straw) and dedicated energy crops such as short rotation shrubs and trees as well as grasses. Potential feedstock in Africa would be acacia, eucalyptus, miscanthus, bamboo, or typha. Some of the above mentioned intermediate products can be directly converted into energy. For instance, syngas can be used in gas engines and pyrolysis oil in diesel engines to produce electricity. Some pyrolysis plants for electricity production are e.g. installed in West Africa (Novis 2010). Pyrolysis oil, char and slurry can be also gasified in order to obtain syngas. Syngas, either obtained by direct gasification of biomass or by gasification of pyrolysis oil, char and slurry, can be further processed by e.g. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to produce Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL) fuels for transport. South Africa has large experience in synthesising syngas from coal and natural gas. However, BtL fuels are not yet produced at commercial scale and it will need several years to make BtL fuels competitive to fossil fuels and other biofuels.

6.4

Conclusion

As in many developing countries, bioenergy in Africa is currently mainly based on traditional use of bioenergy (i.e. wood-fuels used for cooking in simple stoves). Several initiatives in Africa are also promoting the modern conversion of biomass into high value solid, liquid and gaseous energy carriers, but the current market is still comparably small. Currently, the main progress in modern conversion of biomass is achieved in Europe, North America and some countries in Latin America and Asia. An important challenge is to promote knowledge, technology and experience transfer on modern bioenergy to African countries. Furthermore, the cooperation between African countries has to be encouraged to develop suitable strategies for different technologies and adequate policies. Finally, also experience transfer from African countries to other continents should be supported. For instance the large experience in South Africa in synthesis of syngas could contribute to support the faster commercialisation of BtL fuels. Furthermore, the understanding of local framework conditions and circumstances (climate, policies, soil properties, social aspects) in Africa has to be transferred to foreign investors and technology providers for the successful creation of modern bioenergy markets in Africa.

References Al Seadi T, Rutz D, Prassl H, Köttner M, Finsterwalder T, Volk S, Janssen R (2008) Biogas handbook. BiG > East Project funded by the Europen Commission (EIE/07/214), University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg, Denmark, p 142, ISBN 978-87-992962-0-0

6


73

Austin G, Morris G (2011) Biogas production in Africa. In: Janssen R, Rutz D (eds.) Bioenergy for sustainable development. Springer Verlag, Germany Chagwiza C, Fraser G (2011) Economic evaluation of sweet sorghum in biofuel production as a multi-purpose crop: the case of Zambia. In: Janssen R, Rutz D (eds.) Bioenergy for sustainable development. Springer Verlag, Germany Deepchand K (2005) Sugar cane bagasse energy cogeneration – lessons from Mauritius. Paper presented to the parliamentarian forum on energy legislation and sustainable development, Cape Town, South Africa, 5–7 October 2005 Janssen R, Rutz D (2011) Keynote Introduction: overview on bioenergy policies in Africa. In: Janssen R, Rutz D (eds.) Bioenergy for sustainable development. Springer Verlag, Germany Janssen R, Rutz D, Braconnier S, Reddy B, Rao S, Schaffert R, Parella R, Zaccharias A, Rettenmaier N, Reinhardt G, Monti A, Amaducci S, Marocco A, Snijman W, Terblanche H, Zavala-Garcia F (2010) Sweet sorghum – an alternative energy crop. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, Lyon, France, 3–7 May 2010, pp 200–206, ISBN 978-88-89407-56-5 Karekezi S, Kimani J (2010) Bioenergy development in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Making It Magazine, 26 March 2010 Karakezi S, Kithyoma W, Muzee K, Oruta A (2008) Scaling up bioenergy in Africa. Presented during the international conference on renewable energy in Africa, Dakar, 16–18 April 2008 Legros G, Havet I, Bruce N, Bonjour S (2009) The energy access situation in developing countries: a review focussed on the least developed countries and sub-Saharan Africa. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and World Health Organization 2009 Munyinda K, Yamba FD, Walimwipi H (2011) Bioethanol potential and production in Africa: sweet sorghum as a complementary feedstock. In: Janssen R, Rutz D (eds.) Bioenergy for sustainable development. Springer Verlag, Germany Novis (2010) http://www.novis.de/?lang_pref=en. Accessed 3 Apr 2011 Rutz D, Janssen R (2008) Biofuel technology handbook, 2nd edn. WIP Renewable Energies, München Sawe EN (2009) Sustainable charcoal production for poverty reduction in Tanzania. Bioenergy for sustainable development in Africa conference in Brussels, Belgium, 24-25 November 2009. TaTEDO, http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/events/events2/Brussels/S4-3-COMPETEConference-Brussels-Nov2009-Sawe.pdf SNV (2010) Domestic Biogas Newsletter. Issue 3, August 2010 Vos J, Vis M (2010) Making charcoal production in Sub-Sahara Africa sustainable. NL Agency, The Netherlands Walimwipi H, Yamba FD, Wörgetter M, Rathbauer J (2011) Biodiesel production in Africa. In: Janssen R, Rutz D (eds.) Bioenergy for sustainable development. Springer Verlag, Germany

Chapter 7

Sustainable Charcoal and Firewood Production and Use in Africa Estomih N. Sawe

Abstract The energy sector in Africa is characterized by low per capita consumption of modern energy in a continent endowed with extensive but under-developed energy resources. The majority of the population depends on wood-fuels (charcoal and firewood) because modern energy such as LPG, kerosene and electricity are either unavailable or unaffordable. Deforestation and forest degradation is a major problem created by the current energy consumption patterns in Africa. The negative environmental impacts of cooking with wood-fuels are increasing in most African countries. Poor forest management and increasing demands are leading to land degradation, which for rural women translates to increasingly long daily treks to gather fuel-wood. On average less than 30% of the Sub-Saharan African population has access to electricity and more than 70% depend on wood-fuels for cooking and heating. The current low access to modern energy services in Africa causes negative impacts on poverty reduction efforts and the attainment of the MDGs. Despite the understanding that wood-fuels are the main energy source for the majority of the African population, improvements in wood-fuel production and use is currently not of high priority in energy development strategies. There are no specific wood-fuel policies, strategies and programmes supported by African governments. However, the use of wood-fuels is critical for meeting basic energy needs of the majority of the population in African countries. Due to this low prioritization of wood-fuels, the sector is poorly funded and lacks good governance. Therefore, securing political commitment for formulating and implementing effective policies and strategies are crucial elements that could ensure sustainable production and use of wood-fuels in Africa.

E.N. Sawe (*) TaTEDO, P.O. Box 32794, Mpakani A, Plot No. KJM/MPA/98, Near Institute of Social Works, Kijitonyama, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]


75

76

E.N. Sawe

Keywords Sustainable wood-fuels • Modern energy services • Poverty reduction • Wood-fuels production and use • Wood-fuels waste • Climate change • Indoor air pollution • Energy consumption • Policies • Strategies

7.1

Introduction

Wood based fuels (charcoal and firewood) provide more than 70% of the total energy consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of the households, institutions, small and medium enterprises will continue to depend on wood based fuels to meet their energy needs for many decades due to lack of affordable alternatives. In particular, the demand for wood-fuels in most of Sub-Saharan African countries continues to grow due to population growth. The present wood-fuel consumption pattern in Africa is clearly unsustainable. The current production and use is based on inefficient technologies and practices. Coupled with most wood-fuel user’s inability to access modern energy this leads to uncertainty for future dependence on the already diminishing biomass stock for energy. The situation is further aggravated by the lack of effective policies and strategies to address the growing challenges of wood-fuel production and use in Africa. Policy makers in Africa pay little attention to the ways in which woodfuels are produced and used. Most governments fail to recognize wood-fuels as the main source of energy for the majority in their countries leaving it to the informal sector. In most countries, the supply and demand of wood-fuels is handled by different ministries. Hence, authority and jurisdiction lack clarity. In many African countries, the forest sector contribution to the national economy is marginal (2–4%). Wood-fuel production, use and marketing are predominantly informal and thus escape official statistics, although estimated revenues from charcoal businesses in most African countries exceed more than 500 million US$ per year. Despite the diminishing wood resource, wood-fuels (especially charcoal) in most countries remain underpriced by more than 30% relative to their economic cost. Production costs are not reflected in the market price of wood-fuels. This undervaluation causes waste and inefficient use. It is also a disincentive for sustainable forest management, and for the adoption of efficient wood-fuel technologies such as improved cook stoves and charcoal production kilns.

7.2

Access to Modern Energy for Sustainable Development in Africa

Poverty reduction and access to modern energy services is crucial for sustainable development and the achievement of the millennium development goals (MDGs) in African countries. Without access to modern energy services, the majority of the African population is deprived of potential income generating opportunities and

7

Sustainable Charcoal and Firewood Production and Use in Africa

77

quality social services. There are more than 800 million people in Africa lacking access to modern energy services. This situation entrenched poverty and enhanced unsustainable use of wood based fuels for cooking and process heat in small, medium and micro-enterprises. The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that the use of wood-fuels will continue to increase in Sub-Saharan Africa due to population growth unless effective policy measures are taken to reverse the situation. The unsustainable use of wood-fuels in Africa is causing deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, increased risk of flooding, biodiversity loss and climate change. The increasing use of wood-fuels has negative effects on human livelihoods, especially that of women and children since cooking on wood-fuels in poorly ventilated houses is a major source of indoor air pollutants which causes acute respiratory disease. Reliance on wood-fuels also entrenches gender disparities as time spent, especially by women, on collecting traditional fuels could be spent on other productive activities and education. Commercial energy (electricity and petroleum based fuels) accounts for only a fraction of energy consumption in most Sub-Saharan African countries although most investment on energy planning is focused on commercial energy. The expansion of electricity grids is costly and not affordable by the majority of African countries and many of its poor people. Electricity from decentralized sources such as small hydro, solar and wind systems has high initial costs which are unaffordable by the majority of the poor in Africa. The potential for sustainable production and use of wood-fuels through improving efficiency in resource management and the introduction of efficient biomass technologies such as improved charcoal production kilns with efficiency of more than 25% and improved wood-fuel stoves is crucial. Potential wood-fuel alternatives such as LPG, kerosene, biogas need to be carefully assessed, appropriate measures need to be implemented, and policy incentives for scaling up the use of these fuels need to be formulated.

7.3

Sustainable Wood-Fuel Production and Use

The prevailing experience and trend indicate that wood-fuels will remain the major source of energy for most African countries. Other proven renewable energy sources and technologies (such as small hydro, solar, biogas) could significantly reduce the severe energy poverty, provided they are affordable, reliable and financing mechanisms are available. Unfortunately, biomass resources in most African countries are clearly under threat from overexploitation, creating several social, environment and economic challenges. The increasing costs of accessing wood-fuels in terms of walking distance, fuel purchase and decreasing quality of wood-fuels demonstrate the diminishing trend of wood-fuel resources. Whilst larger efforts are important to increase access of commercial modern energy technologies and services, it is even more crucial to implement effective policies and strategies to ensure sustainable supply of wood-fuels for the majority of the population in Africa who will never have access to electricity and petroleum fuels in the foreseeable future.

78

E.N. Sawe

African countries need to recognize the important role of wood-fuels in households cooking and provision of process heat in rural industries. The policies and strategies should focus on sustainable wood-fuel production and use through ensuring largescale uptake and use of efficient wood-fuel technologies and practices. It is unfortunate that a number of African countries continue to insist on unrealistic options that encourage immediate switch to alternative modern energy services which neither the African countries nor their population can presently afford. The key objective of African governments should be to urgently formulate and implement policies and strategies that clearly recognize wood-fuels as major energy source now and in the foreseeable future. Such initiatives should aim at enhancing capacities of different stakeholders from local to national levels to enable them to contribute effectively in sustainable wood-fuel production and use.

7.3.1

Efficiency Optimization of Wood-Fuel Production and Use

The evaluation of results of wood-fuel programmes implemented by the centre for sustainable modern energy expertise (TaTEDO) in Tanzania has shown that households, SMEs and institutions using improved wood-fuel technologies can significantly reduce costs and hence improve their economic situation. Up to 60% wood and cost savings have been achieved which is 900 US$ per institution per year. Households have been able to save up to 70% on firewood and charcoal use, respectively. In monetary terms this refers to cost reductions of about 80 US$ for firewood users and about 130 US$ for charcoal users per household per year. Similarly, the average production cost of charcoal using improved basic earth mound kilns was reduced by over 40% from 3 to 1.7 US$ per 30 kg bag. In addition, improved charcoal production kilns increased average productivity of charcoal production from 6.6 to 16.4 bags per week from the same quantity of wood. These experiences indicate that there is tremendous benefit from scaling up and replicating strategies for more efficient wood-fuel production and use in most African countries.

7.3.2

Policy and Institutional Issues

Sustainable wood-fuel production and use cannot succeed without its clear recognition as the main source of energy for both consumptive and productive purposes in most Sub-Saharan African countries. The current trend in many African countries for energy departments focusing on commercial energy at the expense of wood-fuels need to be reconsidered. The present energy policies are inadequate in effectively addressing wood-fuel issues. It is only with official policy recognition of the key role of wood-fuels that the private sector and community initiatives could scale-up capacity building, technology transfer, financing and entrepreneurship on wood-fuels to meet the growing challenges in the sector. It is also important to transfer and share good

7

Sustainable Charcoal and Firewood Production and Use in Africa

79

practices amongst African countries. For successful wood-fuel production, the issue of land tenure needs to be addressed, as in some countries land tenure is a key source of uncertainty for investments in wood-fuel production. In most African countries there is a clear lack of adequate institutional framework for addressing sustainable wood-fuel production and use. Although there are ministries in charge of forestry and energy, these tend to give low priorities to issues related to wood-fuels. They are in most cases based at national level with no institutions for the development of wood-fuels at local level where they are urgently needed. The few national and local institutions working on wood-fuels tend to undertake activities in an uncoordinated and ad hoc way, in most cases failing to have high impact and often causing duplication of efforts. A comprehensive bioenergy policy that is well managed and monitored in its implementation will have higher positive impact on sustainable wood-fuel production and use than isolated local level initiatives. The recent initiatives by some African governments to establish rural energy agencies are a welcomed step forwards. It is important that such agencies are adequately empowered and supported to effectively handle wood-fuel issues as priorities. This should include support for formulating and implementing effective legal and regulatory framework and financing mechanism. These agencies need to put greater emphasis on support for the private sector, community participation and other stakeholders in sustainable wood-fuel production, use and marketing.

7.4

Recommendations and Conclusions

Energy policies and strategies of African countries and their development partners should focus on sustainable wood-fuel production and use since this is a priority for the majority of Africa’s population and since this has a high potential for the contribution to the MDGs. Effective wood-fuel policies will ensure sustainability of biomass energy services and contribute to environmental conservation both at local and global level. Value chain efficiency improvements will ensure minimum biomass energy losses with respect to wood-fuel planting, harvesting, processing, use and final disposal. Wood-fuel waste will be minimized in addition to other social, economic and environmental benefits. It is crucial that wood-fuel technologies and land policies in African countries are reviewed and harmonized, and institutional frameworks and governance structures are put in place. With suitable policies and strategies, and effectively implemented legal and regulation frameworks, wood-fuel production and use in Africa could contribute to sustainable development, poverty reduction and mitigation of climate change.

References CHAPOSA (2002) Charcoal potential in Southern Africa. Final report Chaposa Research Project. Tanzania East African Community (2006) Strategy on scaling up access to modern energy services. Arusha, Tanzania

80

E.N. Sawe

ESMAP (2005) Advancing bioenergy for sustainable development. World Bank, Washington, DC Malimbwi RE, Zahabu E, Mchome B (2008) Situation Analysis of charcoal sector in Dar es Salaam. Sokoine University of Agriculture, WWF, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Sawe EN, Sago S (2009) Charcoal industry in Tanzania with selected TaTEDO experience. Sust Energy Dev Forum Dec 2009(7), TaTEDO TaTEDO (2009) Integrated improved wood-fuels in Tanzania. Final evaluation report. Submitted by Ringia O, Massawe W, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, November 2009 United Nations Foundation (2008) Sustainable bioenergy development in UEMOA member countries. Ouagadougu, Mali UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2007) Small-scale production and use of liquid biofuels in Sub-Sahara Africa: perspective for sustainable development. Background paper no. 2, New York

Chapter 8

Bioethanol Potential and Production in Africa: Sweet Sorghum as a Complementary Feedstock Kalaluka Munyinda, Francis Davison Yamba, and Hartley Walimwipi

Abstract This chapter presents an overview of bioethanol potential and production in Africa with specific emphasis on sweet sorghum as a complementary feedstock to sugarcane. Bioethanol feedstock types in Africa include sugarcane, sweet sorghum, maize and cassava. The bioethanol potential in selected African countries for different feedstocks is estimated at 35 EJ, with the Democratic Republic of Congo having the largest potential, followed by Angola, Sudan, Zambia and Tanzania. Bioethanol production in Africa was 637 million litres in 2007, with largest production in South Africa, followed by Egypt and Nigeria. Potential ethanol markets in southern African countries based on E5 and E10 are estimated at 0.8 and 1.5 billion litres per year. The biggest challenge for the development of biofuel markets in southern Africa is that although potential markets exist, and conventional technologies are available, feedstock is not available in sufficient quantities. The main feedstock for ethanol production in Africa is sugarcane, but in the recent past the continent has seen an increasing interest in new feedstock types such as sweet sorghum. In this chapter results for yields and sugar brix for eight exotic sweet sorghum varieties (TS1, Madhura, Praj-1, GE2, GE3, Wray, Cowley, and Keller) are presented and compared to a local sweet sorghum variety (Sima). The results show encouraging yields averaging at 30 tons per hectare under rain-fed conditions. Sugar content in Brix% averaged at about 18% for medium maturing varieties (Keller, GE3, and Sima). The highest values of sugar content of sweet sorghum varieties are similar to those of sugarcane (18%). Keywords Bioethanol • Sweet sorghum • Complimentary feedstock • Brix • Potential K. Munyinda (*) • F.D. Yamba • H. Walimwipi Centre for Energy Environment and Engineering Zambia (CEEEZ), 176 Parirenyatwa Road, Suite B, Private Bag E721, Lusaka, Zambia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]


81

82

K. Munyinda et al.

8.1 Overview of Bioethanol Potential and Production in Africa 8.1.1

Bioethanol Potential

The main resources for bioethanol production in Africa include sugarcane, sweet sorghum, grain sorghum, cassava, and maize as first generation feedstock and miscanthus and bamboo as second generation feedstock. However, there are other indigenous fast growing shrubs and grasses that need to be explored as potential feedstock on the continent (Walimwipi 2008). Key drivers for bioethanol production in Africa are energy security, reduction of oil imports, high oil prices, environmental commitments, rural development opportunities, diversification of agricultural industries and lead/MTBE phase out programmes (Batidzirai 2007). The most popular feedstock for ethanol production in Africa is sugarcane, but in the recent past the continent has seen an increasing interest in new feedstock types such as sweet sorghum. Maize and cassava are no suitable feedstock for ethanol production, since they may lead to increased competition with food production. The bioethanol potential in selected African countries for different feedstock types is shown in Table 8.1. The presented resource assessment is based on literature reviews of bioenergy crops that are known to occur naturally or can be grown in African countries. An inventory was set up based on findings from literature. The biofuels potential analysis was based on available arable land and a production mix of various bioenergy crops. The preliminary biofuels potential analysis was scaled down to the realistic assumption of 10% penetration levels of dedicated bioenergy crops into the available arable agricultural land. Further, lower heating values and biofuel yields per hectare for respective crops were utilized to obtain the biofuels potential in PJ (Walimwipi 2008).

8.1.2

Bioethanol Production

Global ethanol production doubled to 46 billion litres between 2000 and 2005. About 13 countries used ethanol fuel in 2003 and at least 30 countries have already or are planning to introduce ethanol fuel programmes (Batidzirai 2007). Table 8.2 shows ethanol production in selected African countries. A number of African countries have introduced programmes as part of initiatives to promote biofuels development. Some countries have made remarkable progress in terms of policy measures and targets for biofuels. In the following bioethanol programmes and initiatives in selected African countries are briefly presented (Batidzirai 2007). Zimbabwe has been blending gasoline with ethanol from 1980 to 1992. The ethanol programme was motivated by international sanctions imposed on former Rhodesia, security of supply, foreign currency savings, and low sugar prices. A number

8

Bioethanol Potential and Production in Africa: Sweet Sorghum...

83

Table 8.1 Bioethanol potential in selected African countries for different feedstock types in PJ Sugarcane Sweet sorghum Cassava Maize Wheat Total Angola 1,270 912 612 603 – 3,397 Benin 135 – 65 64 – 264 Botswana – 189 – – – 189 Burkina Faso 336 241 – – – 577 Cameroon 433 311 209 209 – 1,162 CAR 918 659 442 – – 2,019 Chad 716 514 345 – – 1,575 DR of Congo 2,134 1,533 1,028 1,028 – 5,723 Congo 685 – 64 – – 749 Côte d’Ivoire 300 – 28 – – 328 Ethiopia 639 – – 304 – 943 Gabon – – 252 – – 252 Ghana 187 134 90 89 – 500 Guinea 214 154 103 102 – 573 Kenya 136 98 66 65 – 365 Madagascar 558 400 269 265 – 1,492 Malawi 76 55 37 36 – 204 Mali 412 296 198 196 – 1,102 Mozambique 806 578 388 388 – 2,160 Namibia 193 138 93 92 – 516 Niger 134 96 64 – – 294 Nigeria 503 361 243 239 – 1,346 South Africa 448 – – 213 107 768 Sudan 1,476 1,060 – – 352 2,888 Swaziland 18 – 9 9 – 36 Tanzania 766 550 369 364 – 2,049 Uganda 111 53 53 217 Zambia 913 655 440 434 2442 Zimbabwe 326 234 157 155 872 Total 35,002 Source: Walimwipi (2008)

of factors contributed to the success of the ethanol programme. These include public-private partnerships, use of local materials and labour, well developed agriculture and industry, clear pricing policies, well planned implementation strategies as well as the absence of food-fuel conflicts. In Malawi ethanol-gasoline blending was introduced in 1982, influenced by costly imports and security of supply (regional instability). Factors that fostered success of the programme include clear and consistent policies, incentives and competitive pricing, as well as steady availability of feedstock and irrigation water (Lake Malawi).

84

K. Munyinda et al.

Table 8.2 Ethanol production in selected African countries

Annual production Country (million litres) Egypt 30 Kenya 15 Mauritius 23 Nigeria 30 South Africa 410 Swaziland 13 Zimbabwe 25 Other Africa 92 Total 638 Source: Batidzirai (2007)

Kenya blended ethanol with gasoline from 1983 to 1993. Due to continuous losses as a result of uncompetitive pricing, poor management, resistance from oil companies, and loan servicing burdens, blending was stopped in 1993 and the ethanol is currently exported. South Africa has introduced an Industrial Biofuel Strategy in 2007. Mandatory E10 blending legislation is currently pending. Ethiopia introduced an E5 mandate in Addis in 2007. Nigeria has entered into a partnership with Brazil to incrproduction in Nigeria. This approach aims at using the Brazilian model to start a bioethanol programme in Nigeria including the Presidential Initiative on cassava. Both countries signed a memorandum of understanding in 2005. Sudan introduced a bioethanol programme in 2007. The new 10-year sugar strategy includes a 250 million litres ethanol plant in Eljazeera.

8.2

Sweet Sorghum as Complementary Feedstock

Grain sorghum today is the world’s fifth largest grain crop in production, with 42 million hectares under cultivation. The leading producers are: USA, Nigeria, India, China, Mexico, Sudan and Argentina. Some of this land in Asia and Africa could be replaced by sweet sorghum varieties, which are capable of producing both grain and energy (bioethanol). Sweet sorghum may give 23% additional returns to farmers compared to grain sorghum (in India) (Kyritsis 2010). Depending on biofuel policies and especially on mandatory blending quota, significant bioethanol markets could be created in southern Africa. This potential is illustrated in Table 8.3 for the fuel blends E5 (95% gasoline and 5% ethanol) and E10 (90% gasoline and 10% ethanol). The biggest challenge for the development of biofuel markets in southern Africa is that although potential markets exist and conventional technologies are available, feedstocks are not available in sufficient quantities. For example, in South Africa the ethanol demand for E10 is estimated at 1 billion litres (at 2,000 levels) against a

8


85

Table 8.3 Potential ethanol markets in southern African countries based on E5 and E10 (million litres) 2000 2015 Country E5 E10 E5 E10 Malawi 4.81 9.62 6.54 13.07 Mozambique 3.33 6.66 4.71 9.41 South Africa 511.9 1,023.8 691.45 1,382.9 Swaziland 4.64 9.28 6.21 12.42 Zambia 8.89 17.7 19.0 25.31 Zimbabwe 23.46 46.91 28.89 57.78 Total 557.03 1,113.97 756.8 1,500.89

potential supply of 0.37 billion litres from C molasses. Thereby, it is assumed that all sugarcane factories in South Africa convert most of the C molasses into ethanol. This scenario leaves a deficit of 0.74 billion litres increasing to 1.0 billion litres by the year 2015. Even if existing sugarcane factories are allowed to expand at acceptable levels of 2–3% per year, available molasses will not be sufficient to cover the demand. Ethanol from lignocellulosic sources such as wood, grass and bagasse is promising; however, conversion technologies are currently not competitive, whilst feedstocks are abundant. For these reasons it is advisable to seek for alternative sugar based feedstocks in the short and medium term such as sweet sorghum.

8.3

Sweet Sorghum Characteristics

Sugarcane and sweet sorghum are C4 plants which have high photosynthesis potential and high biomass productivity compared to other crop types (Munyinda 2008). The genus sorghum includes grain sorghum and sweet sorghum noted for their high yields. Sweet sorghum differs from grain sorghum by a few genes which are controlling plant height and the presence of sugar in the stem. Sweet sorghum accumulates sugars in the stem just as sugarcane. The main advantages of sweet sorghum include (1) shorter growing period (100–130 days), (2) low production cost, and (3) relative drought resistance. Table 8.4 presents a comparison of sugarcane, sugarbeet, and sweet sorghum characteristics (Kyritsis 2010).

8.4 8.4.1

Sweet Sorghum Agronomic Performance Field Tests Methodology

Field tests with sweet sorghum varieties in three agro-ecological regions of Zambia were undertaken with respect to biomass production, sugar content and accumulation, and optimum time of harvest under rain fed conditions. Eight exotic sweet

86

K. Munyinda et al.

Table 8.4 Comparison of sugarcane, sugarbeet and sweet sorghum characteristics Crop duration Sugarcane Sugarbeet Sweet sorghum Growing season About 7 months About 5–6 months About 4 months Soil requirements Only one season Only one season One season in temperate and two or three seasons in tropical area Water management Grows well in Grows well in sandy All types of drained soil drain soil loam; also tolerates alkalinity Crop management 36,000 m3/h 18,000 m3/h 12,000 m3/h Yield per hectare Requires good Greater fertilizer Little fertilizer required; management requirements; less pest and disease requires moderate complex; easy management management Yield per ha 70–80 tons 30–40 tons 54–69 tons Sugar content on 10–12% 15–18% 7–12% weight basis Sugar yield 7–8 tons 5–6 tons/ha 6–8 tons Ethanol production 3,000–5,000 l/ha 5,000–6,000 l/ha 3,000 l/ha directly from juice Harvesting Mechanical Very simple; normally Very simple; both manual harvested manual and through mechanical harvested Source: Kyritsis (2010)

sorghum varieties (TS1, Madhura, Praj-1, GE2, GE3, Wray, Cowley, and Keller) were compared to a local sweet sorghum variety (Sima). The second phase of the study involved agronomic performance of sweet sorghum under supplementary irrigation conditions (varieties were planted initially under irrigation and subsequent growth occurred under rainfed conditions).

8.4.2

Results and Analysis

Results of biomass production of sweet sorghum varieties at different growth stages and accumulation of sugar in different varieties are shown in Figs. 8.1 and 8.2, respectively, under rain fed conditions. The growth stage T1 refers to the booting stage of sweet sorghum varieties (i.e. opening of inflorescence), whereas T2 refers to the soft dough stage (i.e. the stage of the grain before hardening). The stem yields presented in Fig. 8.2 are averages across different environments influenced by soil type and climate. The results at T2 show that yields tend to be highest for the variety TS1 (in average 32 t/ha). Wray had similar yields as Praj-1, Madhura, GE2, and GE3, namely 21.2 Mt/ha, whereas Cowley, Madhura, Keller,

8


87

Fig. 8.1 Harvest of sweet sorghum at different growth stages

Fig. 8.2 Accumulation of sugar in different varieties of sweet sorghum at UNZA Farm

and Sima had the lowest yields of 13.8 t/ha. The yields were highest in Phaeozems, whereas yields were lowest in Ferralsols (i.e. acidic soils with high aluminium saturation). The stem yields of sweet sorghum varieties under rainfed conditions were lower than those for sugarcane (75 t/ha). The yields are, however, higher under supplementary irrigation conditions averaging at 70 t/ha for single cropping.

88

K. Munyinda et al. 35000

18

14 25000 12 20000

10

15000

8 6

10000 4 5000

Brix%

Sugar content (Brix %)

30000

Stem biomass (kg/ha)

STM BMS

16

2

0

0 110

120

140

160

Days after planting Fig. 8.3 Optimum harvest time of sweet sorghum

The sugar content in Brix% generally increases to a maximum of about 18% between 110 and 120 days after planting for medium maturing varieties (Keller, GE3, and Sima). Long maturing varieties (Wray, TS1, and Keller) showed increasing sugar content even at T4 (140 days after planting). Sima was lowest in sugar content with a value of 15%. The highest sugar content of sweet sorghum varieties are similar to those obtained for sugarcane (18%). Results of optimum harvest time are shown Fig. 8.3. The optimum harvest time was determined at the point of inflexion of stem yields, i.e. when stem yields started to decrease due to the drying of stems whilst the sugar content was still increasing. Across varieties, the optimum harvest time was observed at around 122 days after planting. Furthermore, stem yields were evaluated under different soil types including Acrisols, Lixisols, Vertisols, Ferralsols, Phaeozems and Cambisols. The performance of sweet sorghum varieties on different soil types are shown in Fig. 8.4. The highest and lowest stem yields were obtained on Phaeozems (32 t/ha) and Ferrolsols (9 t/ha) across all varieties. Table 8.5 shows yield increase of sweet sorghum varieties on Phaeozems and Lixisols compared to Ferralsols and Vertisols. The results show the adaptation (i.e. differential response) of sweet sorghum varieties on soil types. The lowest yields for Madhura, GE2, Praj-1, TS1, Cowley, Keller, Wray and Sima are obtained on Ferralsols. On the other hand, GE3 and Wray also perform poorly on Vertisols. For all varieties, maximum yields were obtained on Phaeozems. Although the lowest yield of Wray was obtained on Ferralsols, it was higher than for other varieties on the same soils. This shows that Wray is more adapted to acidic soils.

8


89

Fig. 8.4 Performance of sweet sorghum varieties on different soil types

Table 8.5 Yield increase of sweet sorghum Ferralsols and Vertisols (kg/ha) Variety Minimum yield Soil type Madhura 4,816 Ferralsols GE2 7,056 Ferralsols Praj-1 6,545 Ferralsols TS1 5,223 Ferralsols GE3 9,495 Vertisols Cowley 10,190 Ferralsols Keller 11,900 Ferralsols Wray 12,140 Ferralsols Sima 9,293 Ferralsols GE3 9,744 Vertisols Wray 22,340 Vertisols

varieties on Phaeozems and Lixisols compared to Maximum yield 32,370 43,030 38,720 29,690 34,590 32,370 33,430 28,670 20,960 43,030 28,670

Soil type Phaeozems Phaeozems Phaeozems Lixisols Phaeozems Phaeozems Phaeozems Phaeozems Phaeozems Phaeozems Phaeozems

Yield increase 85.1 83.6 83.1 82.4 72.5 68.5 64.4 57.7 55.7 77.4 22.1

In order to improve soil and crop management practices for sweet sorghum, varieties will require the following measures: (1) addition of macro- and microelements through fertilizer application, (2) application of supplementary irrigation, (3) timely planting and control of weeds and pests, (4) implementation of cultural practices that increase soil organic matter content (such practices also improve the stability of highly erodible soils like Acrisols, Alisols and Arenosols), and (5) adjusted lime application to neutralize soil aluminum and increase availability of phosphate and other essential elements to produce high stem yields which is especially relevant for acidic soils.

90

K. Munyinda et al.

Table 8.6 Sweet sorghum production under supplementary irrigation conditions with double cropping Millable stalk (t/ha) Ethanol production (litres/ha) Variety Single crop Double (ratoon) crop Single crop Double (ratoon) crop GE3 82.5 135.3 3,926 6,439 Cowley 71.4 94.2 3,167 4,178 Wray 70.2 143.8 3,571 7,316 Madhura 41.8 85.2 1,230 2,506

Further research was undertaken to assess the performance of sweet sorghum varieties under supplementary irrigation with double cropping (i.e. harvesting the first crop under supplementary irrigation followed by second harvesting). Results of stem yields and corresponding ethanol production for selected sweet sorghum varieties are shown in Table 8.6. Much higher production of sweet sorghum, and therefore higher ethanol production, was obtained for cultivation under supplementary irrigation with double cropping. Stem yield was highest for Wray with similar yields for the first and the ratoon crop. It was observed that Wray was able to withstand rationing compared to other varieties. GE3 and Wray had higher ethanol production under double cropping compared to sugarcane (typically 5,000 l/ha).

8.5

Conclusion

The bioethanol potential in selected African countries for different feedstocks is estimated at 35 EJ, with the Democratic Republic of Congo having the largest potential, followed by Angola, Sudan, Zambia and Tanzania. Bioethanol production in Africa was 637 million litres in 2007, with the largest production in South Africa, followed by Egypt and Nigeria. Potential ethanol markets based on E5 and E10 in southern African countries are estimated at 0.8 and 1.5 billion litres per year. The main feedstock for ethanol production in Africa is sugarcane, but in the recent past the continent has seen an increasing interest in new feedstock types such as sweet sorghum. Results for yields and sugar brix for eight exotic sweet sorghum varieties (TS1, Madhura, Praj-1, GE2, GE3, Wray, Cowley, and Keller) are presented and compared to a local sweet sorghum variety (Sima). Highest stem yieldy are observed for the variety TS1 (32 t/ha), followed by Praj-1, Madhura, GE2, and GE3 (21.2 t/ha), whereas Cowley, Madhura, Keller, and Sima had the lowest yield of 13.8 t/ha. The stem yields of sweet sorghum varieties under rainfed conditions were lower than those for sugarcane (75 t/ha). However, the yields are higher under supplementary irrigation conditions averaging at 70 t/ha for single cropping. The sugar content in Brix% is about 18% for medium maturing varieties (Keller, GE3, and Sima). The highest values of sugar content of sweet sorghum varieties are similar to those obtained for sugarcane (18%).

8


91

In view of the encouraging results of yields and sugar content of sweet sorghum varieties, it is recommended to further improve the yields of sweet sorghum varieties thorough the following measures: (1) improved crop and soil management on currently available sweet sorghum varieties, (2) appropriate agronomic packages for sustained agricultural production, (3) research on (low cost) pest control, especially stem borers, (4) evaluation of promising bio-control measures such as the use of nematodes, and (5) control of diseases such as anthracnose, bacterial stripe, blight, grey leaf spot, sorghum rust, sooty stripe and sheath blight. In the longer term, the focus of programmes should be on crop improvements. Local and exotic sweet sorghum germplasm should be selected to improve yields. The material screened for tolerance to pests and diseases and crop improvements should be conducted with marker assisted selection. The use of molecular markers will enable rapid selection of sweet sorghum lines with desirable traits. This will enable the crop improvement programme on sweet sorghum to be more efficient and cut down on cost and time required to develop new varieties of sweet sorghum. The new varieties of sweet sorghum will thus be available to growers in the shortest possible time. To achieve higher stem yields, sweet sorghum should be grown under rain-fed and supplementary irrigation with single or double cropping schemes, and research should be conducted in an interdisciplinary framework involving all important stakeholders.

References Batidzirai B (2007) Bioethanol technologies in Africa. UNIDO/AU/Brazil first high-level biofuels seminar in Africa (30 July–1 August 2007) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Kyritsis S (2010) The emerging importance of the new feedstocks for bioethanol production. Agricultural University of Athens, Crops2industry workshop, Winschoten, 12 Mar 2010 Munyinda K (2008) Evaluation of sorghum production and potential for bioethanol production in Zambia. Department of Energy Conference on Bioenergy Walimwipi H (2008) Biofuels development in Africa. ICS UNIDO in collaboration with Deutsches BiomasseForschungsZentrum gemeinnützige GmbH

Chapter 9

Biodiesel Production in Africa Hartley Walimwipi, Francis Davison Yamba, Manfred Wörgetter, Josef Rathbauer, and Dina Bacovsky

Abstract This chapter provides a synopsis of biodiesel resources in African countries, production pathways and current biodiesel production technologies. It presents an overview of different feedstock types converted into biodiesel at different scales as well as options of biodiesel production technologies such as single and multi-feedstock technologies and small-scale technologies according to current practice in the industry. Finally, the chapter identifies appropriate biodiesel production pathways, technologies, biodiesel markets and biofuel policy targets in several African countries. Keywords Biodiesel • Trans-esterification • Esterification • Production pathway • Production technology • Markets • Feedstock • First generation biodiesel • Next generation biodiesel • FAME • FAEE

H. Walimwipi (*) Centre for Energy, Environment and Engineering Zambia, Parirenyatwa road, 176, Private Bag E 721, Lusaka, Zambia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] F.D. Yamba Centre for Energy Environment and Engineering Zambia (CEEEZ), 176 Parirenyatwa Road, Suite B, Private Bag E721, Lusaka, Zambia e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] M. Wörgetter • J. Rathbauer Francisco Josephinum - Federal Secondary School and Research Institute for Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Food Technology, BLT – Biomass, Logistics, Technology, Rottenhauserstrasse 1, Wieselburg, AT 3250, Austria e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] D. Bacovsky BIOENERGY 2020+, Gewerbepark Haag 3, 3250, Wieselburg-Land, Austria e-mail: [email protected]


93

94

9.1

H. Walimwipi et al.

Introduction

Depending on the biomass feedstock and the type of technology employed in the production, biodiesel can be named either first generation or second generation biodiesel. Biodiesel produced from food crops (oil crops) and other food based feedstock (e.g. waste oil, animal waste) is often referred to as first generation biodiesel. First generation biodiesel today has a considerable market share and its production technologies are well established. Second generation biodiesel is produced form lingo-cellulosic biomass. In relation to the conversion technology, the bio-chemical conversion pathway is referred to first generation and the thermo-chemical pathway to the second generation production process (Fig. 9.1). Chemically, first generation biodiesel is equivalent to fatty acid methyl esters or ethyl esters, produced from triacylglycerols via trans-esterification or fatty acids via esterification. Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) today are the most commonly used biodiesel type, whereas fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEE) so far have been only produced at laboratory or pilot scale (Bacovsky et al. 2007). There are many options to use different biomass feedstock types for pure plant oil (PPO) and biodiesel production. Besides dedicated oilseed crops such as rapeseed and soybean, microalgae, animal fats and waste oil provide viable feedstock opportunities for fuel production. However, these last three feedstock types are not yet used on a large-scale (Rutz and Janssen 2008). The most common bioenergy crop for biodiesel production in Sub-Saharan Africa is jatropha, mainly because it is non edible, drought tolerant and suitable for cultivation in almost all countries. Other potential feedstocks include coconut, oil palm, sunflower, soybean, animal fat, and castor oil. Second generation biodiesel can be produced from a wider range of feedstocks, which are represented mainly by non-food crops such as lignocellulosic materials. Mainly thermo-chemical processes are employed in converting such biomass feedstock into biodiesel (Arumugam et al. 2007).

9.2

Second Generation Biodiesel Production Technologies

Through thermo-chemical processes (use of high temperatures to pyrolyse or gasify biomass) lignocellulosic biomass can be converted to a raw gas or oil. The resulting gas is then treated and conditioned into synthesis gas (syngas), consisting mainly of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This gas can further be processed into different types of liquid and gaseous fuels via different fuel syntheses. Fuels from this route are called ‘synthetic biofuels’ (Arumugam et al. 2007). The most promising liquid synthetic biofuel currently is BtL fuel (Biomassto-Liquid) produced with the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process. Gaseous synthetic biofuels are e.g. dimethylether (DME) and Bio-SNG (Synthetic Natural Gas).

9

Biodiesel Production in Africa

95

BIOENERGY SOURCES Energy crops, animal fat, woody biomass

Harvesting/ Collection/Provision

Transport

Pre-treatment

Physical-chemical conversion

Thermo-chemical conversion Pyrolysis

Gasification

Gaseous fuel (e.g. synthesis gas)

Storage

Pressing/Extraction

Transesterification

Liquid fuel (vegetable oil, biodiesel, Fischer-Tropsch-diesel)

Combustion

Power

Heat

Fig. 9.1 Biodiesel production pathways

Bio-oil obtained from biomass via pyrolysis or hydrothermal treatment can be converted into high quality liquid fuels by deoxygenation (e.g. HTU diesel). On the other hand, bio-chemical conversion involves pressing and/or extraction of oil from oil crops followed by the transesterification process (Arumugam et al. 2007).

9.3

First Generation Biodiesel Production Technologies

There are different possibilities to classify different biodiesel production technologies, namely according to the type of catalyst (homogenously or heterogeneously catalyzed processes), according to reaction conditions (low and high temperature and pressure reactions), or between continuous or batch operation. On the other hand, it is also possible to classify according to the type of feedstock. The so-called single feedstock technologies use half or fully refined vegetable oils like rapeseed, soybean, sunflower, etc. With these technologies the content of free fatty acids should

96

H. Walimwipi et al.

be very low, resulting in low formation of soaps. Normally alkaline catalysts like sodium methoxide or potassium hydroxide are used, and the soaps formed as by-products during the reaction are either removed by water washing or recycled by esterification with acid catalysts. With this technology also a small amount of other feedstock like recycled frying oil or higher acidic palm oil can be blended to the refined vegetable oils (Bacovsky et al. 2007). The so-called multi-feedstock technologies are capable of processing feedstock with higher amounts of free fatty acids. Here, pre-esterification of the free fatty acids is necessary. Alternatively, all fatty material is directly converted to FAME in one step during a high pressure and temperature process. These processes are capable to process any type of feedstock, including acid oils, animal fat, high acidic palm oil or even fatty acids, and they can easily be adapted to change of feedstock (Bacovsky et al. 2007). Apart from single and multi feedstock technologies there are small-scale production units. These plants have a production capacity of up to 5,000 t/a, using different feedstock and different production technologies. Mostly these plants have not been built by large biodiesel technology companies, but the technology has been developed by individual groups and organizations based on own experience and developments. The glycerol by-product is mostly used directly without any purification (e.g. as substrate for biogas plants). The catalyst for transesterification is mainly potassium hydroxide, because it leads to the highest conversion rates. Several of these production plants are organized as co-operatives, using locally produced vegetable oils as feedstock and the biodiesel as fuel for agricultural vehicles. Most very small production units do not have own facilities for quality control. Thus, the quality of the product might vary and not meet the European fuel standard EN 14214, representing a serious risk for diesel engines (Bacovsky et al. 2007).

9.3.1

Catalysts for Transesterification and Esterification Reactions

9.3.1.1

Homogeneous Catalysts

Alkaline or basic catalysis is by far the most commonly used reaction type for biodiesel production. The main advantage of this form of catalysis over acid-catalyzed transesterification is high conversion under mild conditions in comparatively short reaction times (Bacovsky et al. 2007). Moreover, alkaline catalysts are less corrosive to industrial equipment, and thus enable the use of less expensive carbon-steel reactor material. The main drawback of the technology is the sensitivity of alkaline catalysts to free fatty acids contained in the feedstock material. Therefore, alkali-catalyzed transesterifications optimally work with high-quality, low-acidic vegetable oils, which are however more expensive than waste oils. If low-cost materials, such as waste fats with a high amount of free

9


97

fatty acids, are processed by alkaline catalysis, deacidification or pre-esterification steps are required. Acid catalysis offers the advantage of also esterifying free fatty acids contained in the fats and oils and is therefore especially suited for the transesterification of highly acidic fatty materials (Bacovsky et al. 2007). However, acid-catalyzed transesterification is usually far slower than alkalicatalyzed reactions and requires higher temperatures and pressures as well as higher amounts of alcohol. The typical reaction conditions for homogeneous acidcatalyzed methanolysis are temperatures of up to 100°C and pressures of up to 5 bars. A further disadvantage of acid catalysis, probably prompted by the higher reaction temperatures, is an increased formation of unwanted secondary products, such as dialkylethers or glycerol ethers (Bacovsky et al. 2007). The major disadvantage of homogeneous catalysts is that they cannot be reused. Moreover, catalyst residues have to be removed from the ester product, usually necessitating several washing steps which increase production costs.

9.3.1.2

Heterogeneous Catalysis

Traditional heterogeneous catalysis offer a series of advantages, such as easy separation, re-usable pure glycerol and no side products (salts) (Mittelbach 2005). There have been various attempts aimed at simplifying product purification by applying heterogeneous catalysts, which can be recovered by decantation or filtration or are alternatively used in a fixed-bed catalyst arrangement. The most frequently cited heterogeneous alkaline catalysts are carbonates and oxides of alkali metals and alkaline earth metals (Bacovsky et al. 2007).

9.3.1.3

Enzymes as Catalysts

In addition to the inorganic or metallo-organic catalysts presented so far, also the use of lipases from various microorganisms has become a topic in biodiesel production. Lipases are enzymes which catalyze both the hydrolytic cleavage and the synthesis of ester bonds in glycerol esters (Bacovsky et al. 2007). As compared to other catalyst types, biocatalysts have several advantages. They enable conversion under mild temperature, pressure, and pH-conditions. Neither the ester product nor the glycerol phase has to be purified from basic catalyst residues or soaps. Therefore, phase separation is easier, high-quality glycerol can be sold as a by-product, and environmental problems due to alkaline wastewater are eliminated. Moreover, both the transesterification of triglycerides and the esterification of free fatty acids occur in one process step (Bacovsky et al. 2007). However, lipase-catalyzed transesterifications also entail a series of drawbacks. As compared to conventional alkaline catalysis, reaction efficiency tends to be poor, so that biocatalysis usually necessitates far longer reaction times and higher catalyst concentrations. The main hurdle to the application of lipases in industrial

98

H. Walimwipi et al.

biodiesel production is their high price, especially if they are used in the form of highly-purified, extra cellular enzyme preparations, which cannot be recovered from the reaction products (Bacovsky et al. 2007).

9.4

Biodiesel Production Technologies for Sub-Saharan Africa

From the overview of biodiesel production technologies presented above, several first generation biodiesel production technologies can be employed in Africa. These technologies include single feedstock, multi-feedstock and small-scale production units. In terms of catalyst application, homogeneous catalysts are favourable for many African countries due to their low cost. In addition, homogenous alkaline catalysts are cheap and utilization as fertilizer is possible. Biodiesel production technologies today use homogeneous alkaline catalysts such as alkali alkoxides and hydroxides. New trends in biodiesel production include heterogeneous catalysts, enzymes and supercritical alcohols (Mittelbach 2005). The choice of catalyst thereby requires a fine balance amongst feedstock type, quantity of free-fatty acids in the feedstock, re-usability, cost, reaction time, alcohol consumption, and reaction temperature and pressure. High investment costs of the use of heterogeneous catalysts make such catalyst non competitive from an African point of view and thus inappropriate for application in most African countries. Similarly, due to high associated costs enzymes and supercritical alcohols are currently inappropriate for application in most African countries. Biodiesel production with thermo-chemical processes by converting lignocellulosic biomass to oil is currently neither competitive in Africa nor in other parts of the world due to high cost of production. In future, however Africa can benefit greatly from this technology considering its large potential for cellulosic feedstock production.

9.5

Feedstock for Biodiesel in Africa

Africa has a wide ranging variety of crops for bioenergy purposes owing to its suitable climatic and soil conditions. The large potential of currently underutilized arable land places Africa in a strategic position as a continent with enormous potential for biofuels production. Regions with significant potential are in tropical wet and in tropical wet and dry areas. Also, regions in semi-arid areas have the potential to produce significant amounts of bioenergy (particularly drought resistant crops) (Walimwipi 2008). The most favourite bioenergy crop for biodiesel production in Sub-Sahara Africa is jatropha, mainly because it is non edible, drought tolerant and can grow

9


99

Table 9.1 Oil crops distribution in Africa West Africa X X X X X

East Africa X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

North Africa X

Southern Africa X X X X X X X X X

Central Africa

Coconut (Cocos nucifera) Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) X Castor oil (Ricinus communis) X Olive (Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata) X X Linaceae (Linseed) Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) Niger Seed (Guizotia abyssinica) X Soy bean (Glycine max) X X Oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) X X Abyssinian mustard (Crambe hispanica) X Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) X X Green thorn (Balanites maughamii) X Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) X X X Mkange (Allanblackia stuhmannii) Allanblackia floribunda X X Allanblackia parviflora X Source: FAO (2008), Nguyen (2006), Raymond et al. (2007), WCMC/INBAR (2004), www.eoearth. org, EcoWorld (2008), (www.israel21c.org), (Biofuels Market Africa), (African Biodiversity Network) Notes: (1) X –implies regions where a particular crop is grown or occurs naturally (2) These crops may not grow in all countries in a particular region

in almost all countries. Other potential feedstocks include coconut, oil palm, sunflower, soybean, animal fat, and castor oil. Table 9.1 provides a distribution of oil crops across the African continent according to regions where a particular crop grows naturally or can be cultivated. It must be pointed out, however, that an indication of crop suitability in a particular region (e.g. olives in southern and central Africa) does not imply that it grows in all countries in the region (Walimwipi 2008).

9.6

Biodiesel Market in Africa

Markets as key components for biofuels development are influenced by national fuel consumption of gasoline and diesel, potential blending ratios and the availability of feedstocks. Driving forces for markets include high oil prices, policy decisions on biofuel blending, local employment and poverty (Yamba 2007). Biofuel production affects many different markets (through direct and indirect market interactions), including markets for inputs (e.g. land and water) as well as markets for agricultural products and biofuel co-products (e.g. food and animal feed) (Walimwipi 2008). Growth of global demand for biofuels has so far resulted in large increases in the scale of production of ethanol and FAME biodiesel. One indicator of the mag-

100

H. Walimwipi et al.

nitude of this increase is its impact on prices in large, established agricultural commodity markets. With respect to biodiesel in Africa, jatropha emerges as a favourite biodiesel feedstock which has generated a lot of interest across the continent. In the following a brief summary of the current status of jatropha biodiesel in Africa is presented. In northern Africa there are very little jatropha related activities due to the extremely arid climatic conditions. However, several pilot projects using sewage water for year-round irrigation are tested in Egypt. In West Africa, Mali and Cape Verde Islands have long-traditions in jatropha cultivation. The focus in Mali lies on the use of PPO for village energy supply. Large-scale projects are currently under preparation in several West African countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon. In East Africa the largest project developments are reported in Tanzania, followed by Ethiopia. Jatropha-related activities have started at small-scale also in Kenya and Uganda and are likely to rise dynamically. Today, significant investments in cultivating jatropha as an energy crop take place in Africa. However, there are strong regional disparities. Apart from Botswana, Angola and South Africa (due to the prohibition of commercial jatropha plantations), ambitious commercial operations are currently developed throughout southern Africa (Walimwipi 2008).

9.7

Targets for Biofuels in Africa

Until today, many African countries have started to embrace biofuels and a number of countries have made remarkable progress in terms of policy measures and targets for biofuels. Several African countries including Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Zimbabwe plan to expand biofuels production and use (Walimwipi 2008). A number of initiatives are being employed in African countries to develop biofuel industries. The following are examples of initiatives currently implemented in African countries. Botswana recently launched a Biomass Energy Strategy (BEST) with support from the German Development Cooperation (GTZ) and the Partnership Dialogue Facility of the EU Energy Initiative (EUEI PDF). The objective of BEST is to ensure that biomass energy is produced, supplied and used in a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable manner. Within BEST, studies are performed to identify opportunities for interventions on woody biomass, wet biomass, energy crops and residues (COMPETE 2009). The government of Tanzania established a Biofuels Task Force under the lead of the Ministry of Energy and Minerals with the participation of a variety of government ministries and institutions. This Task Force elaborated draft biofuel guidelines which aim at guiding the sector until policies, legislation and an institutional framework are in place. These guidelines focus on ensuring socio-economic sustainability of bioenergy development, the avoidance of food-fuel conflicts, and sufficient value creation for the local rural population. Different land acquisition and tenure systems

9


101

were introduced for bioenergy projects including shorter leasing periods of 5–25 years, the possibility to use land as equity, and mandatory villager shares in projects. Furthermore, investors will be required to use part of the land allocated for the production of food crops (COMPETE 2009). In Kenya initiatives of bioenergy policy implementation include the development of strategies in the areas of biodiesel, bioethanol, cogeneration and wood-fuel. In the field of biodiesel a National Biofuels Committee was set up in 2006 with the objective to develop a strategy for 2008–2012. The motivation for the biodiesel strategy was to increase security of energy supply by reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, to diversify rural energy sources by supplementing with biodiesel, to contribute to poverty alleviation through diversification of income sources, and to address global warming (COMPETE 2009). In Niger, various efforts have been undertaken to address issues related to biofuels which include the Poverty Reduction Strategy (SRP), the National Renewable Energy Strategy (SENR) and the Reference Program of Energy Access (PRASE). In the field of biofuels preliminary studies have identified three potential feedstock sources, namely jatropha, neem, and moringa. Furthermore, successful experiments have been performed to test the use of neem oil in engines (COMPETE 2009). African countries which have set up bioenergy policies and/or targets include: (1) Zimbabwe has set blending targets of 8–13% ethanol in gasoline, (2) blending ratios of E10, and B5–B20 are proposed in Zambia, (3) South Africa has introduced a penetration target of 2% for liquid road transportation fuels by 2013 with E8 and B2 as blending ratios, as well as fuel levy exemptions, and incentives for producers on underutilized land, (4) targets of 10% ethanol in gasoline (E10) and 5% biodiesel (B5) in fossil diesel are set in Mozambique, (5) Botswana has a proposed blending ratio of E5 and either B5 or B10, (6) the biodiesel strategy in Kenya includes blending ratios of 5% (B5) by 2012 and 10% (B10) by 2020 to ensure a national market for biodiesel (Walimwipi 2008).

9.8

Conclusions

Africa has a large variety of suitable crops for biodiesel production due to its suitable climatic and soil conditions. The large potential of currently underutilized arable land places Africa in a strategic position as a continent with enormous opportunities for biofuels production (both bioethanol and biodiesel). The emerging biofuels industry in Africa has seen a strong interest amongst African countries with several initiatives to expand the production and use of biofuels. The technology for biodiesel production from first generation feedstock is available at reasonable cost. Africa has a huge market potential for biodiesel both internally and externally. A number of countries have already established targets and blending ratios for biodiesel and other countries are expected to follow. These targets in African countries together with targets set in the EU and elsewhere provide good market opportunities for biodiesel produced in Africa.

102

H. Walimwipi et al.

References Arumugam S, Zinoviev S, Foransiero P, Stanislav M, Müller-Langer F, Kaltschmitt M, Vogel A, Thraen D (2007) Bio-fuels technology status and future trends, technology assessment and decision support tools Bacovsky D, Körbitz W, Mittelbach M, Wörgetter M (2007) Biodiesel production: technologies and European providers. IEA Task 39 Report T39-B6, 104 p Biofuels Markets Africa – the 2nd annual Pan-African meeting place for the biofuels industry, accelerating sustainable growth in Africa COMPETE (2009) Bioenergy policy implementation in Africa. COMPETE Policy Conference, Lusaka, 26–28 May 2009 Eco World (2008) http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=367. Accessed 2008 FAO (2008): Food and Agriculture Organisation,http://www.fao.org. Accessed 2008 Mittelbach M (2005) Biodiesel: production technologies and perspectives. Working Group Renewable Energy Resources Nguyen (2006) A simple rule for bioenergy conversion plant size optimisation: Bioethanol from sugar cane and sweety sorghum Raymond et al (2007) Biofuels: ACP’s response to fossil fuel dependence The role of science, technology and innovation in supporting sustainable biofuel policies Rutz D, Janssen R (2008) Biofuel technology handbook. 2nd Version. WIP Renewable Energies, München Walimwipi H (2008) Biofuels development in Africa. for ICS UNIDO in collaboration with Deutsches BiomasseForschungsZentrum gemeinnützige GmbH WCMC/INBAR (2004) Bamboo biodieversity, Africa, Madagascar and the Americas Nadia Bystriakova, Valerie Kapos, Igor LysenkoUNEP Yamba FD (2007) Biofuels framework for Zambia. For Government Republic of Zambia Ministry of Energy and Water Development

Chapter 10

Biogas Production in Africa Greg Austin and Glynn Morris

Abstract Biogas is derived from anaerobic digestion of biomass, which can be broadly grouped into municipal sewage and solid waste (including food wastes), livestock and agroprocessing residues, and energy crops. Technologies range in scale from domestic systems for thermal (cooking) energy to multi-megawatt gridconnected combined heat and power generation systems, or even systems that inject biomethane into natural gas grids. Biogas technology provides distinctive advantages compared to other renewable energy technologies: it combines energy (gas) storage with generation; it provides valuable co-products such as nutrient-rich bioslurry; and it can easily co-digest a range of feedstocks thus providing an integrated waste management service. At the same time, the subtleties associated with the technology arise from a unique combination of factors including that: the feedstock source is often a waste or problem product, and hence its use for energetic utilization resolves waste management problems; the nutrients made more available through the anaerobic digestion process are extremely valuable (typically, the nutrients are at least five times as valuable as the biogas generated); and co-digestion of different substrates in one system improves returns on investment. The trend now is that of increasing numbers of biogas installations across Africa. This is largely apparent in the domestic energy sector, which has in recent years seen the start of a number of national domestic biogas programmes each with national targets of over 10,000 domestic systems to be installed in the next 5 years. National programmes in Africa are currently implemented in Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Benin and Burkina Faso. In many African countries, the sewerage infrastructure and waste management within the urban and peri-urban perimeters is often non-existent, or failing. Many major cities have an immediate opportunity through

G. Austin (*) • G. Morris AGAMA Energy, The Green Building, 9b Bell Crescent Close, Westlake Business Park, 7945, Westlake, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]


103

104

G. Austin and G. Morris

biogas technology implementation to reduce the serious, negative impact of the status quo on the aquatic environment, on human health and hygiene, and on pests and methane emissions from rotting organic solid waste, be it at the roadsides or at dump sites. The biogas solutions are additional and complementary to the existing infrastructure. The benefits of the technology, compared with other renewable energy technologies (RETs) are often subtle and hence more difficult to measure and realize, yet with the correct policies and financial tariffs/incentives in place, the use of the technology is most certainly viable. The levels and types of service offering and the associated business models are key elements to deepening the access to the technology across Africa. Keywords Biogas • Anaerobic digestion • Bioslurry • Renewable energy • Energy services • Integrated waste management • Co-digestion

10.1

Introduction

Biogas derived from anaerobic digestion of non-lignocellulosic biomass is possible in three broadly defined feedstock categories: municipal sewage and solid waste (including food wastes), livestock and agroprocessing residues, and energy crops (Al Seadi et al. 2008). More recent technology developments also allow for anaerobic digestion of lignocellulosic feedstocks as well. The benefits of anaerobic digestion, compared with other renewable energy technologies (RETs) are often subtle and hence more difficult to measure and realize; yet with the correct support frameworks in place, the use of the technology is certainly viable and the uptake is increasing. Hence, the trend in Africa now is that of increasing numbers of biogas installations. This is largely apparent in the domestic energy sector, which has in recent years seen the start of a number of national domestic biogas programmes each with national targets of some 10,000 domestic systems to be installed in the next 5 years. At present the countries with national domestic biogas programmes are Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Uganda, Cameroon, Benin and Burkina Faso. In the period 2007 to July 2010, the total number of domestic biogas systems installed totalled 1,665 under the formal programmes running in the aforementioned countries (SNV 2010), with additional digesters having been built prior to and outside of the national programmatic frameworks. These programmes incorporate multilateral, co-ordinated financing in order to leverage national investments, and programme-level technical, marketing and financial elements to transform the market uptake. Subsidies are invariably necessary and carbon finance is clearly an attractive option to supplement the funding. Increasingly the programmatic or ‘nationally appropriate mitigation activities’ (NAMA’s) approaches lend themselves to aggregating many thousands of domestic digesters into large individual carbon projects to raise additional funding to offset capital costs. In many African countries, the sewerage infrastructure and waste management within the urban and peri-urban perimeters is often non-existent, or failing.

10

Biogas Production in Africa

105

Many major cities have an immediate opportunity to reduce the serious, negative impact of the status quo on the aquatic environment, on human health and hygiene, and on pests and methane emissions from rotting organic solid waste, be it at the roadsides or at dump sites. In summary, service offerings of waste treatment, energy provision, water recycling and nutrient capture for agriculture are valuable inputs to societies and economies in Africa. These services are critically important requirements for enhancing (or maintaining) the quality of life of people and communities as well as for productive activities – and are key underlying requirements for meeting the Millennium Development Goals. A significant and important proportion of the demand for these services can be provided from systems based on biogas digester technologies. This chapter thus explores the opportunities for biogas systems to provide these services based on experience in Africa.

10.2

Services Offerings

The key service offerings, or requirements, as experienced by customers that are made available from the operation of biogas systems include: • waste and waste water treatment and management – the treatment by means of anaerobic digestion of organic wastes from a wide range of sources including human and animal wastes, food wastes and agricultural wastes • energy supply (including energy storage) – the production of biogas for thermal energy services such as cooking, baking, water heating, industrial process heating or electricity generation • water re-use/recycling – the integrated utilization of water for sanitation in a manner in which the water can be treated for re-use on site • nutrient capture for food production – the use of the nutrient rich digestate from the output of a digester for food production in food gardens or agriculture Of the four service offerings mentioned, the focus traditionally has been on the use of biogas as a fuel or energy substitute to replace either fossil fuels, or more often, woody biomass that is extracted on a non-renewable basis and which therefore leads to deforestation, erosion and degradation of soil quality. However, by extension, and over time, these additional co-benefits can be and are readily attained. The traditional application of domestic biogas technology for energy provision is typically for homes with four or more cattle supplying all the cooking requirements of the household without any additional inputs of biodegradable resources to the digester (Austin and Blignaut 2008). This is based on the widely practised rural South African livestock management system, where cattle feed widely in communal areas during the day and are only penned (corralled) at night. Hence to achieve the minimum amount of twenty kilograms of cattle manure, four head of cattle are required. As a side-effect, the limiting access of the technology to households with four or more head of cattle excludes the poorest in society, whilst benefiting the better

106

G. Austin and G. Morris

off (on a rural relative scale) in the community. Technology extension leads to smaller, cheaper digesters being made more accessible to those with three, then two cows etc., as has been the case in Nepal for example. However, an alternative service delivery method is possible that can yet lead to more equitable access to the benefits of biogas – in the form of energy, or nutrients, or even just employment – across a community, in the case of a minority of that community holding a majority of the cattle.

10.3

Biogas Technology

Whilst manure of any kind can be digested to produce biogas, albeit with varying amounts of biogas output per kilogram of feedstock, the focus here on cattle manure is based on the strong ownership of cattle in rural African communities, as well as the cultural relationship between cattle ownership and status and wealth in a given community. Domestic biogas digester systems require a certain amount of liquid feedstock per day for the fermentation processes. In the ideal situation all the urine from the cattle would be captured together with the solids, which would then be fed into the digester with the correct ratio of liquids to solids for the anaerobic process, which is in the order of one component solids to one component liquids. In practice, the urine is seldom captured and therefore in the four-cow scenario where 20 kg of solids are collected, access to at least 20 l of water per day (corresponding to two buckets) is essential. It is important to note that access to fresh water for this purpose is not a limiting factor for the uptake of the technology, since the water used in the digester can just as readily be used or ‘grey’ water from within the household. Nevertheless, a distance of not more that 1 km from the household is felt to be the maximum distance people should walk to get water, in order for water access not to be a limiting factor for domestic biogas technology uptake. There are three main philosophies employed in the design of domestic biogas digesters, namely the floating drum digester, the fixed dome digester, and the flexible balloon digester. These configurations are shown in Figs. 10.1–10.3. The microbiological processes taking place in these digesters are essentially the same. Due to the generally warm climate in Africa, at most locations ambient temperature is sufficient to maintain the fermentation process and no artificial heating is required. In practice, biogas installations in Africa are based on psychrophilic (East project funded by the European Commission (EIE/07/214), University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg, Denmark, p142, ISBN: 978-87-992962-0-0 ARTI (2011) http://arti-africa.org/. Accessed 3 Jan 2011 Austin G, Blignaut J (2008) South African national rural domestic biogas feasibility assessment. Ministry of Development Co-operation, the Netherlands Austin G, Everson C, Everson T, Gambiza J, Salomon M, Tau M and Van Ierland J (2010) Improving the livestock carrying capacity with rainwater harvesting and conservation on grasslands for extensive and/or intensive livestock production and biogas generation from manure in rural areas of South Africa. Water Research Commission, project number K5/1955 FAO (1996) Biogas technology – a training manual for extension. Support for Development of National Biogas Programme (FAO/TCP/NEP/4451-T). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

10

Biogas Production in Africa

115

Frankel PL (1986) Water lifting devices. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah810e/AH810E13.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2010 Gregory R (2010) China – biogas. http://www.ecotippingpoints.org/our-stories/indepth/chinabiogas.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2010 Sasse L (1988) Biogas plants. A publication of the Deutsches Zentrum für Entwicklungs technologien – GATE, a division of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH SNV (2010) Domestic Biogas Newsletter. Issue 3, Aug 2010

Chapter 11

New Conversion Technologies for Liquid Biofuels Production in Africa Bothwell Batidzirai, Edward M.W. Smeets, and André P.C. Faaij

Abstract On the longer term, the production of second generation biofuels from lignocellulosic biomass is expected to become economically competitive with gasoline and diesel. A pre-requisite is that several technological hurdles will be overcome and that a large, stable supply of lignocellulosic biomass will be guaranteed. Studies have shown that Sub-Saharan Africa has the potential to contribute significantly to the global supply of biomass energy derived from lignocellulosic resources. Due to the high investment costs of establishing largescale second generation biofuel processing plants, the production and export of pre-treated biomass (e.g. pellets) to industrialised countries is a potentially interesting short-term option. An illustrated example is the production of lignocellulosic biomass in Mozambique which has the capacity to annually contribute up to 2% of global energy supply in the form of bioenergy under a strict sustainability framework. However, rationalisation in agriculture will be essential for realising this potential and efficient logistics are needed to ensure competitive biomass supply. Keywords Biomass • Bioenergy • Africa • Mozambique • Second generation biofuels • Lignocellulosic • Fischer-Tropsch • Logistics

B. Batidzirai (*) • E.M.W. Smeets • A.P.C. Faaij Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]


117

118

11.1

B. Batidzirai et al.

From First to Second Generation Biofuels

Future transport energy systems in a climate constrained world are anticipated to rely increasingly on biofuels, such as fuel ethanol, biodiesel, biogas or hydrogen. Current estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA) project the contribution of biofuels to 9% of the total transport fuel demand in 2030 (IEA 2009a). Other scenarios expect the contribution of biofuels to increase to 26% of total transportation fuels by 2050 (IEA 2008a). Current global biofuel production is over 80 billion litres equivalent to 1.5% of global transport fuel consumption, and this represents an increase of more than 400% since 2000. Over 99% of all currently produced biofuels are classified as “first generation” (i.e. fuels produced primarily from cereals, grains, sugar crops and oil seeds) (IEA 2008b). About 85% of global first generation biofuel production is bioethanol. First generation bioethanol is produced by fermenting plant sugars of feedstocks such as starchy and sugar crops. Biodiesel on the other hand is derived mainly from oil-seed crops (e.g. palm oil, rapeseed or soybean), animal fats or waste greases. Bioethanol and biodiesel can be used as transportation fuels either as neat fuels or blended with petroleum fuels. Technologies for the production of first generation biofuels are mature and projects are undertaken on commercial basis. In contrast, “second generation” biofuel technologies are still at pilot and demonstration stages. “Second generation” biofuels are produced from lignocellulosic feedstocks such as agricultural and forest residues, as well as purpose-grown energy crops such as vegetative grasses and short rotation forests (SRF). These feedstocks largely consist of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Conversion to bioethanol fuel is via complex hydrolysis of the cellulose and hemicellulose to sugar, after which fermentation of sugar is performed. These feedstocks can also be converted to fuel via gasification or pyrolysis to produce synthetic diesel, bio-oil and other fuels. To be competitive with fossil fuels, there is need to overcome several technical challenges – the focus of current R&D (Rutz et al. 2009).

11.1.1

Drawbacks of First Generation Biofuels

In spite of their early hype, production of most first generation biofuels is facing heavy criticism regarding socio-economic and environmental impacts. There are concerns about impacts on food security and agricultural commodity prices, as well as worries about GHG emissions associated with land use changes. One of the key drivers for biofuel production is their vaunted ability to reduce GHG emissions. However, life cycle assessments indicate that current biofuels provide only limited GHG reduction benefits (with the exception of sugarcane ethanol). As shown in Fig. 11.1, there is a large emission range for each of the different biofuel options, indicating wide uncertainty of actual GHG emissions of biofuels. Furthermore, the presented LCA studies still exclude indirect land use change impacts.

11

New Conversion Technologies for Liquid Biofuels Production in Africa

119

Fig. 11.1 Comparison of life cycle GHG emissions for biofuels and petroleum fuels (Source: Hoefnagels et al. 2010)

Current biofuel crops are not efficient energy producers and require vast surfaces of arable land that will not be available for other purposes such as food production, thus causing potentially adverse consequences for food security. This could lead to competition for scarce productive land resources and social conflicts especially between large corporate entities and local communities. By drawing on food crop resources such as corn, first generation biofuels are said to undermine food security and contributed to recent increases in world prices for food and animal feed. Although biofuels are not the only factor contributing to food shortages and high prices, competition with food remains an issue as long as the bulk of first generation biofuels are produced from food crops. Production costs of current biofuels are high and they have become an expensive option for energy security and GHG mitigation. The IEA estimates that GHG mitigation from biodiesel and corn ethanol (whilst varying by country and pathway), mostly exceed 250 US$ per t CO2 avoided (IEA 2010). As these technologies are mature, there is little scope for improving the mitigation costs compared to other options.

120


There are also concerns that current biomass feedstock may not always be produced sustainably and thus environmental and socio-economic benefit claims could be misleading. Current biofuels are reported to be accelerating deforestation (apart from other indirect land use effects) in some countries. In high nature value areas (such as peatlands and tropical rainforests), biofuel production can potentially adversely impact on biodiversity and compete for scarce water resources in some regions. Due to all these concerns, attention is gradually focussing on second generation biofuels, which are based on non-edible biomass and promise to avoid the sustainability concerns related to current biofuel production.

11.1.2

Benefits of Second Generation Biofuels

Generally, the advantage of second generation biofuels is their ability to utilise many different types of lignocellulosic materials as feedstock, ranging from forestry and agricultural waste materials such as straw, bio-wastes and wood offcuts to energy crops. Whilst only parts of an energy crop are used in the production of first generation biofuels, the complete crop can be used in the production of second generation biofuels. Also, lignocellulosic crops have higher yields per unit area. This way, more biomass per unit land area can be harnessed. Hence, second generation biofuels are expected to have lower land use change and other associated environmental impacts. However, the inclusion of credits for co-products can potentially improve the environmental competitiveness of first generation biofuels. The successful development of commercially viable biofuel programmes depends on the continuous supply of appropriate feedstocks. There is limited scope for rapidly expanding the supply base of first generation feedstocks. In contrast, lignocellulosic biomass is the most abundant biological material on earth, and its use would significantly expand the volume and choice of feedstocks for second generation biofuel production. Dedicated cellulosic energy crops have high potential as feedstocks for second generation biofuels. These crops include short-rotation woody crops such as eucalyptus or grasses such as miscanthus and switchgrass. Apart from providing better returns in terms of biomass production per hectare, some fast-growing perennials can grow on degraded or marginal soils where food crop production is not optimal. Thus, competition for land with food and feed production is reduced and degraded land can potentially be rehabilitated. As shown in Fig. 11.1, second generation biofuels could dramatically reduce lifecycle GHG emissions compared to petroleum fuels and first generation biofuels. This stems from both the higher energy yields per hectare and energy savings in the conversion process. Second generation feedstock production based on perennial crops provide year-round soil cover and require less soil preparations than annual crops. This assists in erosion control and increases water-retention capacity. The soil carbon stock can also be improved through both roots and leaf litter. However, ultimately the environmental impact of lignocellulosic biofuels depends on the conversion route, the

11


121

feedstock and site-specific conditions. Similar sustainability issues also apply for second generation biofuels and supply chains need to be carefully analysed. Furthermore, the use of agricultural residues in biofuel production could benefit farmers by adding value to agricultural waste, which mostly has no commercial value in many African countries. There is also potential to create jobs along the value-chain of second generation biofuels which could boost rural income and development. However, second generation technologies are still under development, although commercialisation is anticipated in the next decade. During this period, it is expected that first generation technologies will continue to play a role as the industry makes a transition to a more sustainable future.

11.2

Overview of State-of-the-Art Second Generation Biofuels Technologies

There are two main promising routes used to process biofuels from lignocellulosic feedstock: bio-chemical and thermo-chemical. In the bio-chemical route, enzymes and other micro-organisms are used to convert cellulose and hemicellulose components of the feedstocks to sugars prior to their fermentation to produce ethanol. The remaining lignin can be used to generate power or steam. The thermo-chemical pathway (commonly referred to as Biomass-to-Liquids (BtL) technology) employs gasification or pyrolysis to produce a synthesis gas or syngas from which a wide range of long carbon chain biofuels, such as synthetic diesel or aviation fuel, can be derived (see Fig. 11.2).

11.2.1

Syngas Based Biofuels

The advantage of the BtL route to liquid transport fuels lies in the ability to use almost any type of biomass, with little pre-treatment other than moisture control. This vastly widens the feedstock base and improves the GHG balance. Thermo-chemical conversion of biomass to biofuels generally involves higher temperatures and pressure than those needed for the biochemical route. It is based on either gasification or pyrolysis. Biomass feedstock is pre-treated to required specifications before being fed into a gasifier. The syngas produced is a mixture of mainly CO and H2, and some CH4. Further treatment involves cleaning to remove tars, particulates and gaseous contaminants before being fed to a Fischer Tropsch (FT) reactor where syngas interaction with catalysts results in the production of different types of fuels. Most prominent fuels derived include FT liquids and dimethyl-ether (DME). Methanol and hydrogen can also be produced. FT fuels are suitable for use in diesel engines whilst DME can substitute LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas). The FT process is an established technology and is already applied on a large-scale to produce liquid fuels from coal or natural gas.

122

B. Batidzirai et al. Hydrogen (H2)

Water gas shift + separation Gasification

Syngas

Catalysed synthesis

Methanol CH3OH DME CH3OCH3 FT Diesel CxHy

Lignocellulosic biomass

Anaerobic digestion

Biogas

Purification

SNG CH4

Bio oil

Hydro treating and refining

Biodiesel CxHy

Sugar

Fermentation

Ethanol CH3CH2OH

Flash pyrolysis Hydrothermal cracking Hydrolysis

Fig. 11.2 Overview of second generation biofuel production pathways

Developed in the 1920s in Germany, it was used by both Germany and Japan during World War II and later by South Africa and to a lesser extent in the United States. The FT process is a catalysed chemical reaction in which CO and H2 are converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms. Depending on the catalyst, a different fuel is produced. Generally, iron and cobalt catalysts are used in the process. BtL fuels can also be produced via direct gasification of biomass, as well as via ‘fast’ or ‘flash’ pyrolysis. These are thermo-chemical processes in which organic materials are rapidly heated in the absence of oxygen to produce char, tar and organic vapours depending on reaction parameters. Following cooling, bio-oil (or pyrolysis oil) can be separated from the char. Bio-oil can be upgraded to a fuel for use in diesel engines. Fluid bed and ablative reactors are the two principal technologies now available for flash pyrolysis. A related thermo-chemical process is called hydrothermal upgrading (HTU). During HTU, biomass is thermo-chemically converted to a liquid called ‘bio-crude’. Bio-crude can be further processed in a traditional oil refinery to various fuels. Advantages of BtL fuels are their high quality as ultra clean transportation fuel with very low sulphur content and aromatic compounds. FT-diesel can be directly used in vehicles and existing infrastructures without any adaptation.

11.2.2

BtL Development Challenges

Although coal gasification technologies have been commercially available for decades, there is little commercial experience of integrating biomass gasification with FT processes.

11


123

Key challenges relate to the gasifier designs, syngas quality, product selectivity in chemical synthesis, process integration and demonstration at industrial scale. In addition, there is need to optimise plant configurations to ensure technical and economic viability of BtL technology (FAO 2008; Rutz et al. 2009). The syngas technology is very capital intensive and large-scale conversion facilities (in the Gigawatt thermal range) are required for cost effective operations. Because of such scale requirements sourcing adequate biomass feedstock to meet demand at viable scale is a challenge. Supply chain logistics need to be optimised as the scale of operation may be limited by the distance over which biomass can be transported to a processing BtL plant at an economic price. Operational and maintenance costs of BtL plants are also high.

11.2.3

Ethanol Production from Lignocellulosic Biomass

The production process of lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol consists of several stages, including biomass pre-treatment, hydrolysis, fermentation and distillation. Chemical and physical pre-treatment breaks down cell structures and separates the lignin from cellulose and hemicellulose and thereby facilitates the hydrolysis (saccharification). Acid or enzymatic hydrolysis converts the cellulose and hemicellulose into fermentable monomeric and oligomeric sugars, with enzymatic hydrolysis using cellulases and hemicellulases being the preferred route. The lignin residue can be used for generation of electricity. The sugars are fermented to ethanol, which is then purified and dehydrated.

11.2.4

Lignocellulosic Ethanol Development Challenges

Lignocellulosic ethanol is still at the demonstration stage and several technical challenges need to be overcome to make it competitive. Key challenges include the development of low cost enzyme production, the development of robust microbes, the demonstration of processes at industrial scale and the potential for integration of process with production of other fuels and fuel additives. Pre-treatment is considered the most costly step for this technology affecting downstream stages. Two trends are possible for future processes, a continuing consolidation of hydrolysisfermentation reactions in fewer reactor vessels and with fewer micro organisms, or an optimisation of separate reactions. The second biggest challenge is optimising ethanol fermenting micro-organisms that can tolerate adverse process conditions, and convert all sugars including pentoses like xylose and arabinose. Further optimisation can be achieved through ‘consolidated bioprocessing’ i.e. by producing all required enzymes within the reactor vessel, thus using the same ‘microbial community’ to produce both the enzymes that break down cellulose into sugars and those that ferment the sugars to ethanol.

124

11.2.5


Developments in Advanced Biofuel R&D and Economics

Most second generation biofuel technology R&D is currently taking place in developed countries (e.g. US and Europe) and in some emerging economies (e.g. China and Brazil). Significant progress is being made in R&D and demonstration, and it is likely that commercial scale plants will be deployed over the next decade. A host of technical improvements, cost reductions and environmental concerns have to be addressed to make the technologies competitive. Figure 11.3 shows the global cost supply curve for BtL diesel under the four IPCC SRES (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Special Reports on Emission Scenarios) scenarios1 projected up to 2050, assuming that the feedstock is based on energy crops produced on abandoned agricultural land and rest land.

11.3

Development of Advanced Biofuels in Africa

Recent studies show that Africa has a high potential for the production of dedicated bioenergy crops (at low cost) suitable as second generation biofuel feedstocks. Smeets et al. (2007) estimated potential surplus land of up to 0.7 Gha in Africa that could be used to grow energy crops with annual yields of up to 317 EJ, assuming

Fig. 11.3 Cost supply curve of BtL diesel under four IPCC SRES scenarios (Source: Hoogwijk et al. 2009)

1

The four IPCC SRES storylines (A1, A2, B1 and B2) describe different probable global social, economic, technological, environmental, and policy development pathways. They are constructed along two dimensions, i.e. the degree of orientation on material versus social and ecological values (A – B), and the degree of globalisation versus regionalisation (1–2), i.e. A1 is so-called “Global Economy” scenario, A2 is “Continental Markets”, B1 “Global Co-operation”, and B2 “Regional Communities” scenarios (see Nakicenovic (2000) for further details).

11


125

Fig. 11.4 Projected technical bioenergy production potential in 2050 (EJ yr−1) assuming four different agricultural management systems (the rightmost bar represents a very high level of agricultural technology) (Source: Smeets et al. 2007)

improvements in agriculture productivity of up to 8 times2 (Fig. 11.4). Using scenario analysis, Hoogwijk et al. (2004) also projected biomass production potential of up to 134 EJ per year for Africa, using abandoned agricultural land and nonproductive land. Wicke et al. (2010) estimated the annual technical bioenergy potential for semi-arid and arid regions of eight Sub-Saharan African countries to be 300 PJ for cassava based ethanol, 600 PJ for jatropha based biodiesel and 4 EJ for fuel-wood from SRF. Recent analysis in Hoogwijk et al. (2009) show that Africa may become an important low cost supplier of lignocellulosic biomass produced on abandoned land and non-productive land (excluding bio-reserves, forest, agricultural and urban areas and assuming the demand for food, fodder and forestry products is met). The study identifies East and West Africa as largest regions with lowest-cost potential (up to 92% of global potential below 1 US$ GJ−1). The regions also have significant potential to produce biomass at costs below 2 US$ GJ−1, which costs are competitive compared to fossil fuels. Recent analysis by van Eijck et al. (2010) have also shown that it is possible to produce low cost eucalyptus pellets (at 2.7–3.3 US$ GJ−1) which is competitive at current market prices with conventional pellets (at 5 US$ GJ−1). At these cost levels, large-scale biofuel production is expected to become competitive with fossil fuels, provided technological advancements are achieved. Despite Africa’s theoretical bioenergy production potential, realising this potential remains a daunting challenge. High investment costs of second generation

2

In comparison, total land surface area of SSA is about 2.3 Gha (Bruinsma 2003), and global oil consumption in 2007 was 148 EJ of which 90 EJ was for transportation (IEA 2009b).

126


biofuel plants are a major barrier to commercial realisation of this technology, especially in Africa. Currently, capital costs are estimated at about 300 M€ for medium scale plants (400 MWth input) to 750 M€ for large-scale plants (2 GWth input) (Hamelinck et al. 2005). Similar to power sector projects, such investments in Africa usually rely on external finance as domestic resources are usually limited. Given the risks and because of these high investment costs, most second generation plants are in the short-term likely to be built in industrialised countries. However, Africa can play an important role as a supplier of biomass feedstock to the global industry, well before the technologies can be implemented on the continent. A few detailed case studies have been conducted to evaluate the possibilities of biomass energy exports from Africa. These studies have identified Mozambique as a potential biomass energy supplier. Mozambique is considered a promising country for biomass production due to relative abundance of land resources, favourable environmental conditions and low population density. Biomass resource assessments (Batidzirai et al. 2006; Hoogwijk et al. 2004; Smeets et al. 2007) indicate considerable potential within the sub-region. The following section presents some key results of an assessment of the potential, economics and logistics options to produce biofuels in Mozambique for the export market using Rotterdam Harbour as a final destination.

11.4

Biomass Production Potential from Dedicated Energy Crops in Mozambique

Mozambique is a sparsely populated country, with land area covering 80 Mha and an estimated population of 21.7 million. Population density is about 26 pers/km2, the most densely populated areas are along the coast and in the agriculturally productive central provinces (INE 2009). Although Mozambique has achieved an impressive economic growth in recent years, it remains one of the poorest countries in the world, with an average per capita annual income of 370 US$ in 2008 (World 2009). Delivery of biomass from Mozambique to international markets can be in the form of pellets, bio-oils or fuels. Biomass supply logistics depends mainly on the biomass distribution density, operational scales, operating windows and relative distances to supply destinations. Logistic operations include biomass harvesting, storage, drying, transportation, sizing, and conversion. Detailed formulation of the logistic concept can be found in Batidzirai et al. (2006). In the analysis it was assumed that conversion of FT fuels is via direct pressurised oxygen blown Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB) gasification technology fed with wood chips. A simple comparison was also made of FT fuel production via pressurised oxygen blown Entrained Flow (EF) gasification using pyrolysis oil and pulverised pellets as input. CFB gasification has the disadvantage that it has limited maximum capacity of about 400 MWth for a single unit whereas EF gasification units in the 1,000 MWth range are possible. This allows greater scaling benefits for EF gasification (Hamelinck et al. 2005).

11


127

Fig. 11.5 Regional biomass annual production potential in Mozambique (in PJ HHV projected for 2015) (Source: Batidzirai et al. 2006)

Mozambique has the potential to produce up to 6.7 EJ of biomass energy annually using surplus land with moderate agricultural technological inputs. As shown in Fig. 11.5, the northern parts of the country have the highest potential compared to the central and southern regions. This potential is assessed based on estimated availability of surplus land and the yield level, whilst observing key sustainability criteria (mainly ability to meet food demand and no deforestation). Currently, only 5 million hectares (Mha) of the 48 Mha of agricultural land are effectively used for food production (FAOSTAT 2009). Up to 45 Mha of agricultural land could (in theory) be made available for bioenergy crop production in Mozambique by 2015, depending on the level of advancement of agricultural technology and the animal production system. Only 10% of the surplus areas are assigned to eucalyptus plantations in estimating the biomass potential.

128

B. Batidzirai et al. 12 11 /GJdelivered)

9

7

Energy

Fuel cost(

10

6

O&M

5

Capital

8

Labour

Biomass

4 3 2 1 0 EF Pellets

EF Pyrolysis

CFB FT

Fig. 11.6 Range of costs for BtL delivered at Rotterdam Harbour (Source: Batidzirai et al. 2006)

Biomass feedstock production costs range from 0.6 to 1.2 €/GJ plus additional harvesting costs of between 0.11 and 0.2 €/GJ. In comparison, crude oil production costs have been estimated in the Middle East to be less than 5 US$ per barrel (~0.71 €/GJ), and up to 15 US$ per barrel (~2.1 €/GJ) for oil extracted from North Sea fields and more difficult Russian fields (Fullerton 2003). However, biomass production costs have minor influence on final fuel costs and inland transport costs as well as pre-treatment costs are more decisive. Also, it was determined that early conversion of biomass to either pellets or pyrolysis oils at local facilities reduces overall logistics costs, indicating that truck transportation of raw biomass is much more important in the overall costs than the benefits of economies of scale achieved at centralised facilities. The opposite is true for Fischer Tropsch conversion. Pellets are delivered at lower costs (2.6 €/GJ) than pyrolysis oils (3.2 €/GJ) or FT fuels (6.8 €/GJ). This shows that the higher transportation costs due to higher volumes of pellets are compensated by the high conversion cost for FT fuels (2.2 €/GJ) and higher handling costs for pyrolysis oil. In comparison, the production cost of petrol and diesel from crude oil is the range of about 9.2–10.9 €/GJ (Gonsalves 2006). Conversion of pellets and pyrolysis oils to FT fuels via EF gasification at the importing labour results in fuel costs of 4.5 and 4.8 €/GJ (Fig. 11.6). The most attractive supply chain of bioenergy in terms of delivered fuel cost and energy requirements was found to be the local conversion of biomass to pellets with further conversion to FT fuels using the entrained flow gasification method, whereas in terms of CO2 emissions, the pyrolysis chain is more attractive. Whilst the best logistics of supplying bioenergy from Mozambique have been found to be local production of pellets and pyrolysis oils in Sofala region and eventual conversion to FT fuels in Rotterdam, this is largely because local synthesis of

11


129

FT fuels will demand large amounts of biomass feedstock, which may not be achievable in the short-term. However, in the long-term, it may be possible to establish large-scale FT fuel synthesis plants in Mozambique which may be supplied by biomass from one or several regions. This will require improvement in (especially rail) infrastructure. In addition, there will be need to build more experience and biomass production capacity in the country. For the short to medium term, pellets are recommended as an intermediate biofuel for international trade because the delivered fuel cost is cheaper and energetic losses are lower than either pyrolysis oil or FT fuel (produced at source).

11.5

Conclusion

Second generation biofuels are not yet produced commercially, although a number of pilot and demonstration plants are underway mainly in North America, Europe and a few emerging countries. A number of technological and cost barriers need to be overcome for the successful commercial deployment of second generation biofuel technologies. Africa has potential to play an important role in the production and supply of modern biomass energy, given its competitive advantage. Mozambique is one of the countries in the region which is strategically positioned to produce biomass energy for export to the international market as well as meet some of its own internal energy needs. In line with the Mozambican government’s agricultural and economic development policies, sustainable cultivation of energy crops has the potential to open up rural areas, to create employment, as well as to improve degraded land and infrastructure whilst generating much needed foreign currency.

References Batidzirai B, Faaij A, Smeets E (2006) Biomass and bioenergy supply from Mozambique. Energy Sust Dev X(1):54–81 Bruinsma J (2003) World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. An FAO perspective. Food and Agriculture Organization. Earthscan, London FAO (2008) The state of food and agriculture. Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome FAOSTAT (2009) ProdSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fullerton RL (2003) Blood for oil? United States Air Force Academy. http://www.globalsecurity. org/military/library/report/2003/main0903.htm. Accessed 15 July 2010 Gonsalves JB (2006) An assessment of the biofuels industry in India. UNCTAD, Geneva Hamelinck CN, van Hooijdonk G, Faaij APC (2005) Ethanol from lignocellulosic biomass: techno-economic performance in short, middle and long-term. Biomass Bioenergy 28(4):384–410 Hoefnagels R, Smeets E, Faaij A (2010) Greenhouse gas footprints of different biofuel production systems. Renew Sust Energy Rev 14:1661–1694. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.02.014

130


Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, van den Broek R, Berndes G, Gielen D, Turkenburg W (2004) Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenergy 25(2):119–133 Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (2009) Exploration of regional and global cost– supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenergy 33:26–43 IEA (2008a) From 1st to second-generation biofuel technologies: an overview of current industry and RTD activities. OECD/IEA, Paris IEA (2008b) Energy technology perspectives 2008: scenarios and strategies to 2050. OECD/IEA, Paris IEA (2009a) World energy outlook 2009. IEA, Paris IEA (2009b) Key world energy statistics: 2009. OECD/IEA, Paris IEA (2010) Sustainable production of second -generation biofuels: potential and perspectives in major economies and developing countries. Information Paper, Paris INE (2009) Instituto Nacional de Estatística. Second general population and housing census, 2007, Maputo. http://www.ine.gov.mz/Ingles/publicacoes/censos dir/ recenseamento_geral/. Accessed 9 Mar 2010 Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S et al (2000) IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA. 599 pp Rutz D, Hiegl W, Janssen R (2009) Biomass-to-liquid production on Latin America: technical opportunities and research needs. WIP Renewable Energies; Report of the EU Project BioTop (FP7); Contract no.: 213320 Smeets EMW, Faaij APC, Lewandowski IM, Turkenburg WC (2007) A bottom-up assessment and review of global bioenergy potentials to 2050. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33(1):56–106 van Eijck J, Smeets E, Faaij A (2010) The economic performance of Jatropha, Cassava and Eucalyptus production systems for energy in an East African smallholder setting. Submitted for publication to Agricultural Systems Wicke B, Smeets E, Watson H, Faaij A (2010) The current bioenergy production potential of semiarid and arid regions in sub-Saharan Africa. Biomass Bioenergy 35(7):2773–2786 World Bank (2009) World development indicators database, April 2009. http://web.worldbank. org/. Accessed 9 Mar 2010

Chapter 12

Modern Use of Solid Biomass in Africa: Prospects for Utilization of Agro-Waste Resources in Nigeria Kemjika Benaiah Ajoku

Abstract Agro and forest resources are important energy sources in sub-Saharan Africa. However, Nigeria largely depends on conventional energy sources such as electricity and fossil energy carriers such as crude oil and natural gas. Nevertheless, Nigeria is blessed with abundant bioenergy resources presenting significant potential for developing sustainable energy supply to the rural areas and for mitigating the demand-supply gap in the country. Two key agro-waste resources are rice husks and wood wastes were examined. They present enormous potentials for bioenergy development in the rural areas of Nigeria, but awareness on these potentials has to be raised. Furthermore, appropriate regulatory frameworks are needed to use this potential. Therefore, theoretical and empirical analysis of the potentials of modern use of solid biomass in Africa was carried out and is described in this chapter. Keywords Agro-waste • Biomass • Centralized energy generation • Rice husks • Wood-waste • Wood industry • Rice mill

12.1

Introduction

Biomass is one of the major sources of renewable energy globally. It supplies about one third of energy requirements in developing countries of which the level of utilization varies from country to country. According to FAO (1999) biomass contributes to about 14% of the world’s energy demand (55 EJ or 25 million barrels oil equivalent). Bioenergy technologies based on sustainable biomass supply lead to net CO2 emission reductions if used to substitute fossil fuels (Coelho and Walter 2003; Karekezi et al. 2008).

K.B. Ajoku (*) Raw Materials Research and Development Council, Abuja, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected]


131

132

K.B. Ajoku

Bioresources are potentially the world’s largest and sustainable source of fuel and chemicals. Residues represent a large potential which is mainly under-utilized at present. The energy content of potentially harvestable residues is estimated at about 93 EJ/year worldwide (FAO 1999). It is evident that the problem of biomass utilization is not availability, but relates to the sustainable management and delivery of energy to those who need it at acceptable cost. There is increasing evidence that considerable potential exists for modernization of biomass fuels to produce convenient energy carriers such as electricity, gases and transportation fuels whilst continuing to provide traditional uses of biomass. The modernization of biomass and the necessary industrial investment is already happening in many countries. However, future use of bioenergy must be strongly linked to high energy efficiency and environmentally sustainable production and use (Woods and Hall 1994). Traditional biomass has been estimated to account for more than 17% of total primary energy consumption (Inter Academy Council 2010). Traditional uses of biomass are estimated to account for more than 90% of the biomass contribution to global energy supply, most of which occurs outside the formal market economy and predominantly in developing countries. On the other hand, modern uses of biomass to generate electricity and heat or as transportation fuels are estimated to account for less than 10% of total biomass energy consumption worldwide. The change from traditional biomass utilization to more modern applications is challenging for most developing countries, especially for countries of sub-Saharan Africa. This chapter examines the potentials of this transition to modern application of biomass, especially for electricity generation. The impact of this transition on sustainable industrial and overall economic development of Africa is assessed. Specific emphasis is placed on the prospects for the use of agro-wastes for energy generation in Nigeria, especially for addressing household energy needs.

12.2

Overview of Biomass Utilization in Africa

Biomass and bioenergy are essential components of the energy mix in most African countries. Biomass is a renewable energy resource derived from agricultural wastes, residues, forestry resources as well as municipal and industrial wastes. Agro and forest biomass currently play a vital role in energy generation in Africa, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and mainly in rural areas where about 75–95% of the population depend on fuel-wood as primary energy source (Brenes 2006). The reliance on bioenergy in Africa is significantly associated with lack of conventional energy sources such as electricity and petroleum products. Modern biomass utilization has the potential to provide improved energy services to rural Africa based on the resources and agricultural residues. Wastes (such as bagasse) generated from sugar mills in a number of eastern and southern African countries have proven to be a commercial resource for electricity generation. Kerekezi and Kithyoma (2005) reported that up to 16 sub-Saharan

12

Modern Use of Solid Biomass in Africa: Prospects for Utilization...

133

African countries could meet significant proportions of their current electricity consumption from bagasse-based cogeneration in the sugar industry. There is no doubt that the potential for electricity generation from bagasse is high since cogeneration equipment is almost always an integral component of modern sugar factories. In Kenya for instance, it is reported that about 60% of bagasse produced by six sugar factories in the western part of the country is used as boiler fuel for steam generation and electricity (Karekezi and Kithyoma 2005). The estimated cogeneration potential in Tanzania is 157 GWh, of which only 9% has been developed even though the country has an installed capacity of about 26 MW from sugar and forest industries (Karekezi et al. 2008). Similarly, in Mauritius close to 30% of the country’s electricity is generated from the sugar industry using mainly bagasse. Bagasse-based cogeneration development in Mauritius has delivered a number of benefits including reduced dependence on imported oil, diversification in electricity generation and improved efficiency in the power sector in general (Karekezi and Kithyoma 2005).

12.3

Biomass Technologies

Different technologies enable the conversion of biomass into various energy carriers including liquid and gaseous fuels as well as end-energy such as electricity and heat. Technologies such as modern wood fired plants, biomass co-firing, gasification, and co-generation are commercially available and have been increasingly applied worldwide. Contrary to the developments in the industrialized world, there has been persistent reliance on small-scale traditional biomass conversion technologies and limited use of modern technologies in Africa (Onyekwelu and Akindele 2006). Traditional biomass technologies emphasize the inefficient conversion of wood resources into charcoal. Efforts to improve and modernize small-scale biomass energy production constitute an important component of national energy strategies in many African countries of sub-Saharan Africa. Given the enormous quantity of wastes from wood processing in sub-Saharan Africa, the briquetting industry has a promising future (Onyekwelu and Akindele 2006). Modern biomass technologies such as co-generation have the potential to provide improved energy services for the rural population in Africa based on available biomass resources and agricultural residues. These resources provide the feedstock for sustained use of combined heat and power generation in rural areas of Africa (AFREPREN/FWD 2006). The availability of economically competitive biomass power in Africa has the potential to provide cleaner, more efficient energy services to support local development, promote environmental protection, provide improved domestic fuels and improve rural livelihoods (Karekezi et al. 2008). Furthermore, the efficient use of improved biomass feedstock for local co-production of heat, electricity, and transportation fuel have profound impact on the ability of rural populations to access modern, cleaner forms of energy (Inter Academy Council 2010). In fact, the widespread use of biomass based combined heat and power generation in rural Africa can help overcome multiple socio-economic and environmental constraints that hinder development (Karekezi et al. 2008).

134

12.4

K.B. Ajoku

Energy Potential of Agro-Wastes in Nigeria

Conventional energy in Nigeria consists of crude oil and natural gas products. Nigeria also relies on hydropower for electricity production, but its availability is currently limited due to technical problems and ecological constraints. Over the years, the main attention of the Government of Nigeria was on fossil fuels. It therefore implemented energy programmes that target fossil fuels with limited attention to renewable energy resource development and utilization. There is no doubt that the country has very high renewable energy resources besides its oil, gas and coal reserves. With high level of economic activities and increasing rate of urbanization, there has been a sharp increase in energy consumption in the country. Power demand in both residential and industrial sectors has increased significantly in recent times. Industries have not been able to meet their energy needs for competitive manufacturing production. Most of them have invested considerably in alternative energies which has affected the costs of production. Nigeria has an installed capacity of 4,663 MW with a maximum demand of about 3,500 MW. The electrification rates of urban and rural areas are estimated at 84.3% and 27.9%, respectively (World Bank 2007). Nigeria has not yet explored and exploited alternative energy resources such as biomass energy in its energy conservation programme. Biomass energy has, however, been identified as alternative energy source at least to meet the energy needs of the rural and urban poor. The country’s biomass energy resources are estimated at 144 million tons per year (Adegbulugbe and Adenikinju 2010). It is equally estimated that the country consumes about 43.4 billion kg of fuel-wood annually with an average daily consumption of about 0.5–1.0 kg of dry fuel-wood per person. Biomass is a primary source of energy for about 98 million Nigerians (70% of the population) living in rural areas. Even in urban centres, especially amongst the urban poor, considerable amounts of biomass are utilized as energy source. Biomass therefore provides vital and affordable energy for cooking and heating. It has been observed that although the widespread use of traditional and inefficient biomass energy in Nigeria is linked to indoor air pollution as well as to land degradation, deforestation and subsequent soil-erosion, biomass-based economic activities still create significant numbers of jobs and income for the rural poor. The share of biomass energy in total energy consumption has been associated with poverty especially amongst developing countries. It has been reported that about 92% of the population of Nigeria live below 2 US$ per day and depend on traditional biomass consumption (UNDP 2003). There is no doubt that biomass has considerable potential to become more important in total energy consumption and its increased utilization could have significant impact (both positive and negative) on agriculture and the rural poor. The efficient exploitation of existing agricultural wastes presents significant potential for bioenergy development. In Nigeria, some of the common agricultural resources suitable for bioenergy development include for example sugarcane bagasse, rice husks, wood waste, sawdust, oil palm waste, maize cobs, and cotton stalks.

12


135

These wastes are produced during agro-processing and are often not returned to the field with some exceptions, such as for palm wastes. Nevertheless, the use of agro-waste for energy generation could potentially be a source of revenue for the poor whilst mitigating negative environmental impacts of improper waste disposal. This chapter shows the bioenergy resource potentials, especially the exploitation of existing agricultural wastes and suggests priority steps for developing bioenergy processes that are beneficial for the Nigerian population.

12.4.1

Rice Production in Nigeria

Nigeria is West Africa’s largest producer of rice with an average production of 3.2 million tons of paddy rice annually (i.e. about 2 million tons of milled rice) in the last 7 years. According to the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA), it is estimated that Nigeria accounted for about 44% of the total West African rice output and 57% of the total rice producing area (WARDA 1996). With a population of over 150 million people, Nigeria is also one of the largest importers of rice in the world. The annual demand for rice in the country is estimated at 5 million tons. Rice production in Nigeria has increased over the years and the principal factors driving the increased production are population growth and urbanization. Rice cultivation extends from Nigeria’s northern to southern zones with the major producing areas located in Enugu, Ebonyi, Cross River States in the eastern part of the country and Benue, Borno, Kaduna, Kano, Niger and Taraba States in the northern part of the country. Niger State is the largest rice producer in Nigeria followed by Benue State. Generally, there is low yield per hectare which is associated with poor production systems, aging farming population, and low competitiveness with imported rice. Nigerian rice production systems are characterized as follows: • • • • •

Rainfed upland rice on plateau and slopes Rainfed lowland rice in valley and flood plains Irrigated rice with relatively good water control Deep water, floating rice along river beds and banks Rice in mangrove swamps

The rainfed lowland rice production system occupies the largest share of national rice growing area (47%) with an average yield of 2.2 tons/ha and an estimated production share of 53%. The irrigated rice production system has an estimated share of national growing area of 17% with a yield of 3.5 tons/ha and a production share of 27%. This is followed by the rainfed upland rice production system with about 30% share of national growing area, 1.7 tons/ha average yield and 17% share of rice production. Rice in Nigeria is usually produced by small-scale farmers, with an average farm size of 1–2 ha and very low yields. The average rice yield in Nigeria is estimated at 1.85 tons/ha. The national production of rice by smallholder farmers is presented in Fig. 12.1.

136

K.B. Ajoku

Production in thousand metric tons

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Year

Fig. 12.1 Production of rice by smallholder farmers in Nigeria (in thousand metric tons) (Source: Adapted from Data by Obassi and Ajoku 2007)

Nigeria generates significant amounts of wastes from rice milling enterprises and clusters. The states identified with considerable level of organized clusters include Ebonyi (Abakaliki), Benue (Otukpo, Adikpo, Gboko, Vandekiya), Nasarawa (Lafia), Niger (Bidda, Mokwa) and Kano (Kura). In other states where processing facilities are lacking, rice is bought and transported to neighbouring states for further processing. The evolution of rice clusters resulted from dedicated support in some states including provision of land and processing facilities. Cooperatives were formed to use joint processing and marketing facilities (Obassi and Ajoku 2007). It is estimated from a field survey that about 664,000 tons of rice husks are generated from about 3.32 million tons of paddy rice per year. These figures are also shown by FAO data in Table 12.1. A considerable quantity of rice husk heaps are scattered in rice producing and processing localities and clusters across the country. This means that rice husks are not used and that they constitute environmental nuisances (Obassi and Ajoku 2007). The number of rice mills and the quantity of rice husk residues generated in the identified states are presented in Table 12.2. The wastes derived from processing of rice could serve as energy resource material to generate heat and electricity for domestic use. Improving the efficiency of energy production from these wastes could deliver significant economic benefits to the people and associated industries.

12.4.2

Potential for Energy Production from Rice Husks

There is large potential for energy from rice husks in Nigeria. However, as shown above, there are only very limited efforts to exploit this potential. Attempts were

12


137

Table 12.1 World paddy rice and potential rice husk production Paddy rice Percentage of production total paddy rice Husk produced Country in 2002 (t) production (%) (20% of Total) (t) China 177,589,000 30.7 35,517,800 India 123,000,000 21.2 24,600,000 Indonesia 48,654,048 8.4 9,730,810 Bangladesh 39,000,000 6.7 7,800,000 Viet. Nam 31,319,000 5.4 6,263,800 Thailand 27,000,000 4.7 5,400,000 Myanmar 21,200,000 3.7 4,240,000 Philippines 12,684,800 2.2 2,536,960 Japan 11,264,000 1.9 2,252,800 Brazil 10,489,400 1.8 2,097,800 USA 9,616,750 1.7 1,923,350 Korea 7,429,000 1.3 1,485,800 Pakistan 5,776,000 1.0 1,155,200 Egypt 5,700,000 1 1,140,000 Nepal 4,750,000 0.8 950,000 Cambodia 4,099,016 0.7 819,803 Nigeria 3,367,000 0.6 673,400 Sri Lanka 2,794,000 0.5 558,800 Colombia 2,353,440 0.4 470,688 Laos 2,300,000 0.4 460,000 Rest of the World 29,091,358 5.0 5,818,272 Total (World) 579,476,722 Source: FAO Statistics (2002)

100

115,895,344

Potential ash production (18% of husk) (t) 6,393,204 4,428,000 1,751,546 1,404,000 1,127,484 972,000 763,200 456,653 405,504 377,618 346,203 267,444 207,936 205,200 171,000 147,565 121,212 100,584 84,724 82,800 1,047,289 20,861,162

Table 12.2 Distribution of rice mill clusters and quantity of residues

S/No States surveyed Number of clusters 1.0 Benue 5 2.0 Ebonyi 8 3.0 Kano 1 4.0 Nasarawa 2 5.0 Cross River 1 6.0 Niger 6 7.0 Adamawa 3 8.0 Kwara 4 9.0 Edo 3 Source: Field Survey (Obassi and Ajoku 2007)

Number of mills 1,102 1,303 120 222 25 73 35 10 37

Quantity of rice husk/ residue generated (t/year) 39,000 54,500 15,000 18,000 6,000 20,400 12,000 3,000 1,500

made in some locations to utilize husks for the production of briquettes, however with very limited success due to lack of know-how. Nevertheless, rice husks and other agricultural residues could assist the country in addressing its rural energy needs.

138

K.B. Ajoku

Table 12.3 Energy potential of major rice processing clusters in Nigeria Daily quantity Yearly quantity of husk of husk S/No State Cluster name generated (t) generated (t) 1 Benue (i) Otukpo Rice Mills 128 38,400 Cluster (ii) Makurdi Rice Mills 6.75 2,025 cluster (iii) Kwande United Rice 7.2 2,160 Mills, Adikpo 2

Ebonyi

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

Abakaliki Rice Mills Onueke Rice Mils Afikpo cluster Ivo LGA clusters

3

Nasarawa

Lafia Rice Mills cluster

4

Niger

(i) Mokwaka Rice Mills, (ii) Minna-Kpakungu Clusters (iii) Lemu Market Area, Gboko LGA(not really Cluster)

5

Cross River

6.

Kwara State (i) Ojagboro Rice mills cluster (ii) Patigi Women Processors (iii) Lafiagi Women Group

7

Ogoja Central Rice Mills cluster

Energy potential per year (GJ) 542,970 28,640 30,540

150 7.3 3.75 4.8

45,000 2,190 1,125 1,440

636,300 31,000 15,910 20,360

33.2

9,960

140,830

7.5 1.35

2,250 405

31,820 5,730

5.7

1,710

24,180

6,000

84,840

1.05

315

4,450

1.5

450

6,360

2.0

600

8,480

20

Edo State

Agenegbode Rice Mills 3 900 12,730 Agbede Rice Mills 1.5 450 6,360 Source: Field Survey (Obassi and Ajoku 2007) The estimation was based on the following data and assumptions: Annual national paddy rice production = 3.32 million metric tons; Percentage of husk by weight of paddy = 20%; Rice husk energy value (heat value) = 14.140 kJ/kg or 0.01414 TJ; Number of working/production days in a year = 300 days

One of the major rice growing and processing states, Ebonyi is currently establishing an energy generating plant using rice husks with assistance of UNIDO. The energy potential of major rice processing clusters in Nigeria is presented in Table 12.3. The findings revealed that the clusters in Ebonyi and Benue states have great potential for the establishment of biomass energy projects. Three approaches for energy generation from the rice husks could be adopted. 1. Centralized energy generation from centralized rice mills Centralized energy production from centralized rice mills needs a regulatory framework to be implemented. Furthermore, an appropriate incentive framework

12


139

ensuring significant benefits to farmers, industries and relevant stakeholders must be provided. 2. Centralized energy generation from decentralized rice mills In order to guarantee effective utilization of agro-wastes generated at the farm or processing level under a decentralized milling system, an efficient system for collection, transportation, storage handling and fuel preparation is required in order to supply a centralized energy plant. There is a need to put in place a cost effective waste collection system. For rice husks, centralized energy generation systems can be only feasible if the wastes generated are within a particular radius around the cogeneration plant. 3. Decentralized energy generation from decentralized rice mills Small-scale rice mills have the option to produce decentralized energy for their own consumption. This requires effective support in establishing an appropriate technology that can guarantee quality energy supply services. The efficient exploitation of existing agricultural wastes such as rice husks presents significant potential for developing bioenergy without unduly disrupting existing agricultural practices and food production. It will equally serve as a source of revenue for the poor. There are prospects to establish a biomass energy production facility using rice husks as feedstock in both Ebonyi and Benue States. To ensure sustainability in terms of supply of agro-wastes, there is need to improve the current efficiency of existing rice mills. For optimal and sustainable energy generation from rice husks, joint efforts should be made to revitalize large-scale rice production and processing facilities in the country and to promote cluster formation where processing technology is lacking. The waste generated from increasing rice production could be converted to energy to serve the rural communities where the rice is farmed. The energy generation from wastes could serve as an incentive to improve rice farming and processing facilities, if good energy pricing is provided by the government. Obassi and Ajoku (2007) noted that the existing rice milling facilities have the capacity to produce about 350,000 tons of rice husks per year. The installed electricity capacity could be 57 MW and at the same time 608 GWh of steam could be produced per year. It is expected that combined heat and power facilities will supply the energy requirements of modern rice mills and the excess will be made available for local use. It is believed that a small to medium sized power plant ranging from 4 MW to 50 MW of nominal capacity should be promoted to utilize the abundant agricultural wastes through application in combined heat and power (CHP) plants. Furthermore, the government of Nigeria should regulate or prohibit the current practice of dumping rice husks and burning heaps of rice husks which constitutes serious environmental hazards. Efforts should be made through advocacy and technical support to encourage better practices to harness husk heaps for renewable energy production.

140

12.5

12.5.1

K.B. Ajoku

Utilization of Forestry Waste for Energy Production in Nigeria Wood Processing in Nigeria

The wood processing industry in Nigeria is characterized by formal and informal sectors. Whilst the large-scale public owned enterprises constitute the formal sector, the small and medium enterprises owned by the private entrepreneurs constitute the informal sector. The small and medium enterprises, comprising significant number of wood-working enterprises operating in primary processing units, are scattered all over the country. The industrial sub-sector for wood and wood products is engaged in primary wood processing activities in the area of mechanical transformation of wood including saw milling, veneer, particle board manufacturing, pulp and paper, and match splint-making. The secondary wood processing industry comprises small-scale enterprises for furniture making, doors, parquet, mouldings, etc. The tertiary wood industries include those in the production of domestic products (such as fuel-wood, charcoal, etc.), industrial products (construction materials, round and sawn wood) and specialty products (mortars and pestles and carvings). Fuel-wood and charcoal are the basic domestic energy sources apart from electricity and petroleum products. The wood processing industry generates significant volumes of wood wastes, especially sawdust. Saw milling and ply milling generates about 80% of the total wood wastes in the country. It is estimated that there are about 2,800 sawmills in the country with an installed capacity of 5,842,000 m3 and production output of about 2,711,000 m3 (Abdullahi and Ajoku 2001). Sawmills are responsible for processing about 80% of the round wood in the country. The states in Nigeria that are richly endowed with round wood resources and account for a large distribution of sawmills include Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, Edo and Delta (Fig. 12.2). There are about nine large and medium-scale plywood mills in Nigeria: • • • • • • • • •

African Timber and Plywood (AT&P), Sapele, Delta State Piedmont Plywood, Ologbo, Edo State Premier Timbers, Bolorunduro, Ondo State Delta Plywood, Burutu, Delta, State Seromwood Industry Ltd, Calabar, Cross River State Omowoods, Ijebu-Ode, Osun State Calabar Veneer and Plywood, Ltd, Cross River State Nigerian-Romanian Wood Industries Ltd, Ondo State Epe Plywood Company Ltd, Epe, Lagos State

The state owned plywood mills have been privatized. The plywood mills with a total installed capacity of 126,000 m3 currently operate only at 40–45% capacity. Several plywood mills have been shut down due to operational, financial and

12


141

Fig. 12.2 Intensities of saw milling and tree cutting (Source: Abdullahi and Ajoku 2001)

management problems. The few mills still operating do so occasionally especially when they have large contracts to supply plywood. It is projected that the national requirements for plywood and veneer logs will increase in 2015 to about 453,000 m3 and to about 858,000–1,359,000 m3 respectively. However, the wood availability is unlikely to meet this demand as there are indications that wood availability will decrease to about 119,000 m3 by 2015 from 170,000 m3 recorded in 1990. There are two principal categories of forest resources in Nigeria, namely the forests of the woodland and savanna regions which are the primary sources of fuel-wood and poles, whilst the rainforests of the southern humid zone supply domestic timber and lumber, with fuel-wood as by-products. Deforestation has steadily reduced the forest potential of the country. The deforestation rate has exceeded 3.6% in the recent past. There are about 1,160 forest reserves with a total area of about 10.8 million ha, whilst forest plantations are about 269,537 ha (Abdullahi and Ajoku 2001). Fuel-wood accounts for over 90% of the total wood produced, whilst saw logs, poles, pulpwood and veneer logs account for about 4%, 2%, 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively. The demand and supply of wood types such as fuel-wood, saw logs and veneer logs for the period 2007–2010 is projected to decrease significantly (Table 12.4).

142

K.B. Ajoku

Table 12.4 Demand, supply and balance of wood types in Nigeria (2007–2010) (in thousand m³ roundwood volume) S/No Wood type Demand Supply Balance 1 Fuel-wood 88,138 63,099 −25,039 2 Sawn logs 10,205 2,480 −7,725 3 Veneer logs 1,078 114 −964 Total Source: Abdullahi and Ajoku (2001)

99,421

65,693

−33,728

Fig. 12.3 Wood and non-wood processing states in Nigeria (Source: Abdullahi and Ajoku 2001)

It is projected that a deficit of 33.7 million m3 of fuel-wood, saw logs and veneer logs will be recorded by 2010. The wood and non-wood producing states are illustrated in Fig. 12.3. Saw logs production comes from the forest reserves in the states of Anambra, Edo, Delta, Kogi, Cross River, Ogun, Ondo, Ekiti, Osun and Oyo States. These states account for about 55% of saw logs. Seventy percent of the veneer log supply is sustained from the forest reserves in Cross River, Edo, Delta, Kogi and Ondo States. Significant wood waste potential exists from the activities in various segments of the wood industry. However, the decreasing capacity utilization in the processing industry coupled with the shortfall in supply of round wood implies a future reduction

12


Table 12.5 Energy potential of wastes generated by clusters S/No Cluster location Annual residues generated (t) 1 Lagos 137,805 2 Oyo (Ibadan) 34,669 3 Osun (Oshogbo) 8,358 4 Ogun (Abeokuta) 4,974 5 Ondo (Akure) 31,047 6 Ekiti (Ado-Ekiti) 3,840 7 Edo (Benin) 2,585 8 Delta (Asaba/Sapele) 10,806 Source: Field Survey (Idi and Ajoku 2007) Note: 1 MWh = 3.6 GJ

143

Energy potential (GJ) 1,757,022 442,035 106,570 63,429 395,850 48,989 32,966 137,778

in the amount of wood wastes. Nevertheless, the existing processing industries, especially the small and medium wood processing enterprises, are generating significant volumes of wood wastes.

12.5.2

Energy Potential from Wood Waste

The major source of wood waste (especially sawdust) in Nigeria comes from sawmills. Large volumes of sawdust are generated in the states with high wood resources for saw logs and veneer logs. The states Lagos, Oyo, Osun, Ogun, Ondo, Ekiti and Delta have wood processing clusters with large potential to generate significant volumes of wood wastes or saw dust. The analysis of the saw mill clusters showing the annual wood wastes generated and energy potentials is presented in Table 12.5. It is estimated that about 137,805 tons of sawdust are generated from Lagos State clusters annually. Business activities in this cluster include saw milling, planing, carpentry and furniture making as well as specialty products like photograph frames, mortars and pestles, carvings, etc. The clusters source their round wood from neighbouring states including Edo State. The peak operating season is from November to April, with an off season from June to August. The saw dust generated is dumped by the seaside and at times incinerated. In Oyo State, it is estimated that about 34,669 tons of wood wastes are generated annually. There are two major clusters which include the Bodija Plank Market and the Alomaja, Saw Millers Association. The two clusters generate over 140 tons of waste daily and have the capacity to generate about 32,935 tons of sawdust annually. The Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria in Ibadan generates about 7.4 tons daily, even though it hardly operates continuously. The above two locations (Lagos and Oyo) have large wood waste potential from existing sawmill clusters. However, smaller waste generating clusters include those found in Oshogbo, Osun State; Abeokuta, Ogun State; Akure, Ondo State; Sapele, Delta State; Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State and Benin, Edo State.

144

K.B. Ajoku

In some sawmills, the waste generated is sold to entrepreneurs involved in the production of briquettes. In Sapele for instance, the sawdust is used in the conversion process of wood wastes to charcoal for markets in urban and semi-urban centres. This informal activity in the utilization of wastes presents constraints to energy projects relying on the use of wood wastes, unless the expected benefits outweighs the current economic benefits associated with the current uses. However, in areas with large waste production, there is a potential for conversion of wood wastes into energy, especially in Lagos and Ondo States. Nigeria has substantial quantities of forest residues from the timber industry that could be utilized to generate renewable energy. Residues resulting from wood harvesting are currently often not utilized. However, they generate significant volumes of dry biomass. Some of these residues are currently utilized inefficiently for heating and cooking, but not for electricity. Efficient wood-fired power plants should have a capacity of 25–40 MW capable of supplying electricity for 24 h per day as part of the base load system. To produce one MWh of electricity in a 30 MW power plant requires approximately 0.7 dry tons of wood waste (or 1.4 green tons of wood waste). According to the National Association of Forest Industries of Australia, this would be an annual supply of 320– 360,000 tons of wood waste (NAFI 2005). A facility of this size can produce enough electricity to supply 30,000 homes in Nigeria assuming an average residential energy consumption of 7.4 MWh per year. A considerable number of factors determine whether a renewable energy project is commercially viable: • • • • • • •

choice of conversion technology source of wood waste, moisture content and energy density transport distances for the wood waste plant scale economic value of co-products alternative disposal cost for the wood waste availability of subsidies and incentives for the energy products

It is imperative that the choice of conversion technology will depend on the costs of capital, the available volumes and costs of wood waste, access to energy markets, and the prices for renewable energy products.

12.6

Conclusion

The potential for renewable energy production from rice husks and wood wastes in Nigeria is significant. Lagos State was found to have the highest stock of sawdust generated by sawmills whilst Ebonyi and Benue states have the highest resources of rice husk waste. Sawmills and rice mills are scattered all over the country, but are

12


145

well established especially in states with large wood resources and rice production. Several factors were identified that influence the development of wood waste and rice husks as energy resources: • Availability of suitable technology for electricity production from wood wastes and rice husks • Logistical challenges for the transportation of feedstock to the conversion plants • Cost of infrastructure Experience has helped to understand the production chain (from resources to markets) regarding the opportunities for producing electricity from biomass. However, a key need identified is the requirement for an agro-waste bioenergy roadmap that will link producers, processors, renewable energy technologies and renewable energy markets. Specific measures must be taken to create awareness and understanding of the options for using agro-wastes to produce renewable energy. The following recommendations are made: • There is need to create awareness on the potential of renewable energy (RE) in Nigeria using agro-wastes as energy source in meeting rural energy needs. • Agro processing industries need to be informed and sensitized on the markets currently available for RE production from agro-waste resources. • Nigeria should seek for partnerships and investment opportunities to promote technologies for agro-waste based electricity generation. • The government should put in place appropriate regulatory frameworks that promote the utilization of agro-waste as energy resource. • In view of the large volume of agro-wastes generated in the country, efforts should be made to promote renewable energy projects. • State governments should be advised to establish policy frameworks that encourage sawmill operators as well as rice millers to form clusters in order to take advantage of generating income from agro-waste energy projects. • State governments should explore the prospects of generating electricity under their Independent Power Plants (IPPs) programme from agro-wastes to supplement domestic energy needs, especially in rural areas and semi-urban centres. The transition from traditional use of biomass to modern use provides very large opportunities, but also challenges to African countries. There is no doubt that biomass residues, especially agro-wastes suitable for co-generation, can be found in abundance in most sub-Saharan African countries. Using these residues, allows agro-industries to generate power and heat from renewable energy resources in an environmentally sustainable way. It also provides opportunities for increasing rural electrification, as well as reducing transmission and distribution losses. Furthermore, it reduces government involvement in electricity generation as well as provides additional income to rural farmers.

146

K.B. Ajoku

References Abdullahi A, Ajoku KB (2001) Capacity building for sustainable industrial development: Nigerian perspective. Raw Materials research and development Council, Abuja Adegbulugbe AO, Adenikinju A (2010) Country chapter: Nigeria. In Renewable energies in West Africa. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Germany AFREPREN/FWD (2006) Potential for cogeneration in Africa (unpublished report), AFREPREN/ FWD, Nairobi Brenes MD (2006) Biomass and bioenergy new research. Nova, New York Coelho ST, Walter SA (2003) Indigenous technologies for sustainable development. (Chapter 4). Brazil-Country study for sustainable development. Study under development funded by IAE FAO (1999) Multifunctional character of agriculture and land: the energy function. Background paper 2: bioenergy. conference on the multifunctional character of agriculture and land. FAO/ the Netherlands FAO (2002) Statistics. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome Idi A, Ajoku KB (2007) Energy resource assessment of agricultural (Wood) wastes in Nigeria. Country study report under UNIDO funded project Inter Academy Council (2010) Biomass. Biomass-Inter Academy Council. http://www.interacademy council.net/CMS/Reports/11840/11928/11943.asx? Karekezi S, Kithyoma W (2005) Sustainable energy in Africa: cogeneration and geothermal in east and horn of Africa-Status and prospects. Nairobi, AFREPREN/FWD and Heinrich Boll Foundation Regional office for East and Horn of Africa (HBF) Karekezi S, Kithyoma W, Oruta A (2008) Scaling-up bioenergy in Africa. Background paper for international conference on scaling-up renewables in Africa, organized by UNIDO from 16–18 Apr, Dakar NAFI (2005) Cost consideration in using wood waste to produce renewable energy. www.nafi. com.au/bioenergy National Association of Forest Industries (2005) Report 4 – Converting wood waste into renewable energy, National Association of Forest Industries, Canberra Obassi E, Ajoku KB (2007) Energy resource assessment of agricultural (Rice husk) wastes in Nigeria. Country Study Report under UNIDO funded project Onyekwelu JC, Akindele SO (2006) Biomass and bioenergy research in Tropical Africa: state of the art challenges and future direction. In: Brenes M (ed) Biomass and bioenergy new research. Nova Science Publishers, Inc, New York, USA UNDP (2003) Human development report on Nigeria, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Nigeria WARDA (1996) Rice trends in sub-Saharan Africa: a synthesis of statistics on rice production, trade and consumption. Sayce Publishing, London Woods J, Hall DO (1994) Bioenergy for development: technical and environmental dimensions, FAO Environment and Energy Paper 13, FAO, Rome World Bank (2007) Nigeria competitiveness and growth: country economic memorandum. Main Report, No. 36483-NG, Nigeria

Chapter 13

International Trade of Biofuels: Current Trends and the Potential Role of Africa Arnaldo Walter and Anna Segerstedt

Abstract Many countries have turned their attention to the production and consumption of biofuels over the last years. This interest is due to factors like the need to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, counteract surging and increasingly volatile oil prices, search for a more diverse energy matrix and the development of the agricultural sector. For developing countries, biofuels are also seen as an opportunity to reduce oil dependency, minimize foreign debt, improve living conditions in rural areas (including the access to basic energy services) and enhance economic activities. In particular, this is the case of many African countries. Despite the growing interest, large-scale biofuels production and consumption are concentrated to few countries/regions, such as the US and Brazil, in the case of ethanol, as well as European Union (EU), the US and Argentina, in the case of biodiesel. Due to the size of their potential markets, the US and EU will have a crucial impact on trade and may open for more export opportunities for producers in developing countries. However, currently both the US and EU have trade regimes based on tariffs that offset the comparative advantages of some producer countries. In addition, doubts have been raised regarding the real benefits of biofuels. Some criticize their efficiency in mitigating GHG emissions whilst others raise doubts about the pressures on food supply or the non-existence of socio-economic benefits for the population directly affected by biofuels production. Indeed, the effective sustainability of biofuels has been recognized as an essential aspect for their consolidation in the international markets and both in Europe and the US sustainability criteria have been defined. This chapter assesses the international trade of biofuels with particular focus on African countries, which have A. Walter (*) University of Campinas (Unicamp) and Brazilian Bioethanol Science and Technology Laboratory (CTBE), Mendeleyev, 200, Campinas 13083-860, Brazil e-mail: [email protected] A. Segerstedt Institut für Umweltökonomik und Welthandel, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Königsworther Platz 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany e-mail: [email protected]


147

148

A. Walter and A. Segerstedt

a reasonable potential for biofuels production, but may face difficulties in building up the required infrastructure and fulfil the sustainability criteria imposed by the main consumer markets. The main conclusion is that African engagement in an international trade of biofuels is far from being reality, even because so far the market is distorted by trade barriers. In addition, the conditions for large-scale production aiming at exporting are still precarious. On the other hand, in a hypothetical scenario of fair trade environment, the sustainable production of biofuels in Africa would be a unique opportunity for fostering economic and social development. Keywords Biofuels trade • Sustainability • Africa • Trade barriers • Standards • Export • Local market

13.1

Introduction

Biofuels have been a focus of attention in recent years. On the one hand biofuels present a possibility to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to diversify the energy matrix and to reduce oil dependency without a drastic change in the transport infrastructure. In addition, biofuels are seen as an opportunity to improve living conditions in rural areas and to allow a better income distribution. On the other hand, biofuels production has been blamed for food prices inflation and many doubts have been raised about the sustainability of its production and use. So far, large-scale biofuels production and consumption are concentrated to a few countries/regions (US and Brazil, in case of ethanol; EU, US and Argentina, in case of biodiesel). Biofuels are still far from being commodities, firstly because of the production concentration in itself and secondly, because the main consumer markets – US and EU – have trade regimes that offset the comparative advantages of some producer countries. Furthermore, the acceptance of biofuels in these main consumer markets has been conditioned to the accomplishment of sustainability criteria. These requirements are unique in the energy market and have been more rigorous for biofuels than for many other commodities. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the mid-term perspectives of biofuels international trade, taking into account the main driving forces for biofuels in industrialized countries and the required accomplishment of sustainability criteria. The focus of the analysis is African countries that have a reasonable potential for biofuels production, but may face difficulties in order to fulfil the required sustainability criteria imposed by the main consumer markets.

13.2

The Growth of Biofuels Production

Ethanol and biodiesel are the most important biofuels for the time being. The use of ethanol as transport fuel goes back to the origin of the automobile industry as, for instance, Henry Ford’s Model T, built in 1908, used ethanol (Rosillo-Calle and

13

International Trade of Biofuels: Current Trends and the Potential Role of Africa

149

Table 13.1 Biofuels production from 2000 to 2009 in billion litres (BL) Fuel ethanol Biodiesel a b b Country/Region 2000 2005 2009 2005b 2009b USA 6.2 15.0 41.0 0.25 2.1 Brazil 10.7 15.0 26.0 – 1.6 EU 0.9 3.6 3.6 8.9 Others 0.7 2.1 5.4 0.05 4.0 Total 17.6 33.0 76.0 3.9 16.6 Sources: aWalter et al. (2008), bREN21 (2010)

Walter 2006). Currently world production and consumption is dominated by the US and Brazil, which are responsible for about 90% of the world production, with about 67 BL (billion litres) out of 76 BL produced in 2009 (see Table 13.1). On the other hand, also biodiesel has been used as substitute for mineral diesel since the beginning of the twentieth century, but in smaller quantities. From 2005 onwards biodiesel production increased significantly, spearheaded by the EU, which is currently responsible for more than 50% of the world production and about 65% of the world consumption. Table 13.1 shows bioethanol and biodiesel production in recent years. Table 13.2 shows information on the main producers of fuel ethanol and biodiesel in 2009, and their annual average growth rates of production from 2005 to 2009. As can be seen, biodiesel production is less concentrated than ethanol. Given the very low levels of production in 2005, the growth rates of biodiesel has been faster. The average annual increase in biodiesel production indicates a rapid growth in the US, Brazil and Argentina, where the large share is based on soy, as well as in France and Spain (with the main raw materials being rapeseed and sunflower) (REN21 2010). In relative terms, there has been rapid production growth of ethanol in Canada, France, Germany (mostly based on wheat) and in Thailand. In absolute terms, however, the bulk of the production growth has taken place in the US. As for Brazil, the country with the longest tradition in fuel ethanol production, the sector was negatively affected by the high sugarcane prices on the international market and the unfavourable weather conditions in 2009. Moreover, in this year the global economic crisis led to a considerable slow-down both in ethanol and biodiesel production in all the major producer countries (REN21 2010). An important driver in the biofuels boom has been public policies; about 30 countries have already introduced or are interested in introducing programmes for biofuels. Their mandates vary from E2 to E25 (2–25% of ethanol blended with gasoline, volume basis) and from B2 to B8 (2–8% of biodiesel blended with mineral diesel, volume basis) (REN21 2010). Ethanol is also available as E85 blends in the US and Sweden, whilst pure hydrated ethanol is available at all Brazilian fuelling stations. The production of bioethanol in 2009 (76 BL) was estimated at an equivalent of 4.8% of the gasoline consumption, considering a light distillates consumption of about 1,600 BL in the same year (mainly motor gasoline) (BP 2010). In 2005,

150


Table 13.2 Main producers of fuel ethanol and biodiesel and growth of the production from 2005 to 2009 in most important producer countries Bioethanol Biodiesel Share of production Annual growth Share of production Annual growth Country (%) (BP 2010) (% per year) (%) (REN21 2006) (% per year) US 52.9 28.8 12.7 70.2 Brazil 33.9 12.9 9.6 ~600a China 2.7 15.3 n.a. n.a. Canada 2.2 61.4 0.6 ~0 France 1.4 63.9 15.7 44.3 Germany 1.0 46.5 15.7 8.2 Spain 0.6 11.2 3.6 56.5 Thailand 0.5 60.6 3.6 n.a. Argentina 8.4 ~200b Others 4.8 37.5 52.3 Total 22.7 43.6 Sources: BP (2010), REN21 (2006, 2010) n.a. information not available a based on the production of 736 m3 in 2005 (ANP 2010) b Based on the production of 20 ML in 2005 (USDA 2009)

this figure was estimated at approximately 2.1%. In the case of biodiesel production, in 2009 its share was equivalent to 1% (16.6 BL) of the middle distillates production (1,800 BL) (BP 2010) (mainly diesel oil), whilst this figure was only 0.2% in 2005.

13.3

Biofuels Trade

The level of biomass energy trade is small compared to typical agriculture and forestry commodities (e.g. 19% for wheat and 22% for cellulose pulp in 2006) (Heinimö and Junginger 2009). In 2005, ethanol trade represented about 10% of world production and biodiesel trade was negligible (Walter et al. 2008). Based on estimations from non-consolidated figures (data from FO Licht 2010, except for Brazil where data from MAPA was used) the total volume of ethanol exported (7.8 BL; all grades ethanol, not just fuel ethanol) was close to 10% of the worldwide production of fuel ethanol (76 BL). The exports of only fuel ethanol in 2009 were preliminarily estimated as 7.8% of the world production (Szwarc 2010). Despite a reduction of about 30% of the volume exported from 2008 to 2009, Brazil has kept the leading position as ethanol exporter (42%), followed by the Netherlands (15%), France (14%), the US (6.9%), Belgium (4.2%), Spain (3.4%) and Germany (3.4%) (MAPA 2010, FO Licht 2010). From these countries, only Brazil (3.3 BL in 2009) and France (690 ML in 2009) were large net exporters, whilst Germany (1 BL) was a large net importer (FO Licht 2010). In case of biodiesel, the estimate shows that the total volume exported (5.3 BL) in 2009 represented about 32% of the world production (16.6 BL), with Europe as

13


151

Table 13.3 Trade figures of biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) in 2009 – net result is the difference between imports and exports Imports Exports Consumption Net result/consumption (%) Ethanol (ML) US 1,101.9 542.5 42,315.1 1.3 EU 1,430.0 145.0 6,788.0 18.9 Brazil 3,323.5a 24,423.1b −13.6 Biodiesel (kt) US 250.8 750.4 2,344.3 −21.3 EU 1,871.0 66.0 10,655.0 16.9 Sources: FO Licht (2010), except aMAPA (2010) and bBEN (2010)

main final destination1. Argentina was the main exporter (26% of the total volume exported), followed by the Netherlands (15%), the US (14%), Germany (13%), Belgium (11%), Indonesia (4%), Malaysia (4%) and Italy (2%). From these countries, Argentina, Indonesia and Malaysia have only exported, whilst the US (500 ML as balance) and Belgium (210 ML) were net exporters in 2009. The Netherlands, Germany and Italy were net importers. Data of biofuels trade need to be used with caution due to many reasons, such as: (1) the different uses of ethanol, (2) the fact that biodiesel can be produced on site from imported vegetable oils (this, indeed, often happens), (3) the lack of proper codes for biofuels in trade data basis (Zarilli 2006), (4) biofuels have also been exported as blends, to overcome trade duties, and (5) some countries that have high export figures have, in fact, very small production (e.g. The Netherlands). Table 13.3 shows 2009 imports, exports and the share of the resulting balance of biofuels trade compared with the domestic consumption of ethanol and biodiesel, in the US, EU and Brazil. It can be seen that a reasonable share of the biofuels consumption in the EU was covered by imports, whilst the opposite occurred in the US. In 2010, the US became a net exporter of fuel ethanol and a reasonable share was traded with Europe. There is a set of reasons for this, including the growth of production in the US, the decreased demand for gasoline in the US (and, as consequence, the ethanol demand for blends), the cap of 10% ethanol that can be blended to gasoline, and the lower competitiveness of the Brazilian industry. An important driver is also the tax credit (Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit – VEETC) that companies receive for blending up to 90% ethanol to petrol even if fuel is shipped overseas. In addition, these blends are eligible for lower import duties than those applied in Europe for denatured and undenatured alcohol. The negative impact was also perceived in Brazil, where ethanol exports fell dramatically in the last 2 years (from 4.8 BL in 2008 to about 1.8 BL in 2010). Besides the lower competitiveness due to the appreciation of the Brazilian currency against

1 The estimate is based on FO Licht (2010) data for 20 countries (including main EU Member States and US), and on USDA (2009) for Argentina and Gardiner (2009) for Indonesia.

152


the US dollar and the raise of the international sugar prices, ethanol production was affected by adverse weather conditions in 2009. Yet, the main reason can be traced back to the rapid growth of domestic production in the US and the advantages given for exporting to Europe. The drop in ethanol exports from Brazil to the US, as well as the exports through Caribbean and Central American countries can be seen in Fig. 13.1 (from about 1.5 BL in 2008 to 250 ML in 2010 and from 1.2 BL to 150 ML, respectively). The large exports to Caribbean and Central American countries can be explained by the existence of specific trade agreements. CBI (Caribbean Basin Initiative) is a trade agreement which allows up to 7% of the US ethanol demand to be imported duty free even if the ethanol was originally produced outside the CBI countries (Jamaica, Trinidad, and Tobago have taken advantage of this agreement). The same occurs within the context of the USA Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), where Costa Rica and El Salvador have benefited from the duty free entry of a fixed volume of ethanol (Oosterveer and Mol 2010). Similarly, the exports from Brazil to Europe were also reduced in the same period, from about 1.4 BL in 2008 to 380 ML in 2010. Traditionally, the main European markets for Brazilian ethanol were the Netherlands and Sweden, but straight flows to Sweden started to fall in 2005 and in case of the Netherlands a deep reduction occurred in 2009 and 2010. On the contrary, the imports to the UK have increased in recent years, but they are still relatively small (about 160 ML per year). Figure 13.2 shows the evolution of ethanol exports from Brazil to the Netherlands, Sweden and other EU Member States. In Fig. 13.3 the evolution of ethanol exports from Brazil to CBI and CAFTA countries (mainly Jamaica, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago and Virgin Islands) from 2004 to 2009 are presented, as well as the ethanol exports from these countries to the US in the same period. As it can be seen, a strong correlation exists between the two series. Figure 13.4 shows the evolution of ethanol production in US from 2003 to 2009. The information is combined with imports as share of the total domestic production in the same period. It reveals that except for 2006, the percentage of imported fuel ethanol was 6%, or less. This may be explained by the US ethanol policies aiming at supporting local production that is more expensive than in some other countries (e.g. Brazil). According to data by the Energy Information Administration – Department of Energy (EIA-DOE 2010), since 2004 ethanol imports from Brazil and through the CBI and CAFTA agreements were never smaller than 90% of the total imports, but always targeting unsatisfied demand, rather than as a complement to domestic production. To conclude, although growing, biofuels trade is still in a premature stage and the market has been distorted by trade regimes mainly imposed by the US and EU, besides unfair trade practices. Regarding ethanol, the US market – by far the largest – remains difficult to access for foreign ethanol producers, with an import tariff combined with the VEETC tax credit giving a rough 16 US$ cents/litre cost advantage to domestic US producers (REN21 2010). The EU also imposes a duty of 192 Euro/m3 on undenatured alcohol (102 Euro/m3 in the case of denatured alcohol), but as production costs are higher in Europe and there is a high level of unsatisfied demand, there has been more room for imports.

13


153

Fig. 13.1 Evolution of ethanol exports by Brazil from 2004 to 2010 (estimates for 2010) (Source: MAPA (2010))

Fig. 13.2 Ethanol exports from Brazil to EU Member States (SW Sweden, NL The Netherlands) from 2003 to 2010 (estimates for 2010) (Source: MAPA 2010)

154


Fig. 13.3 Ethanol exports from Brazil to CBI and CAFTA countries and from these countries to US – 2004–2009 (Source: MAPA 2010 for Brazil and EIA-DOE 2010 for US)

Fig. 13.4 Ethanol production in US and the share of ethanol imports regarding the domestic production – 2003–2009 (Source: EIA-DOE 2010)

In Europe, considered unfair trade practices have had a deep impact on the biofuels industry recently. In 2007–2008, biodiesel was exported by the US to the European Member States blended with a tiny portion of mineral diesel (known as B99). As in the US a federal tax exemption is granted to companies offering blends, European producers argued that the US was using unfair trade practices. As a result, in 2009, the European Commission imposed anti-dumping and countervailing measures.

13


155

However, circumvention practices were soon observed, as the US biodiesel was shipped via other countries (e.g. Canada) where the production and trade of blends were not covered by the EU duties. More recently, European producers have also blamed Argentina of taking advantage of differentiated export taxes that incentivize exports of biodiesel rather than crude soy oil (E-EnergyMarket 2010).

13.4

Overview of Africa

In order to give an overview of Africa and its current stage of development, in this section three issues are briefly addressed: firstly some differences between Africa and the world, secondly Africa’s high dependence on imported oil, and thirdly the low access to energy services in African countries. The African population amounts to 15% of the world, but its share regarding global development indicators, such as the gross domestic product (GDP), total primary energy supply (TPES), total electricity consumption and CO2 emissions are much lower. Further, when comparing compound indicators such as energy intensity (e.g. energy per unit of GDP) and specific CO2 emissions (e.g. CO2 emissions per GDP) the low efficiency of African economy is highlighted. The differences between Africa and the world are even larger when the comparison is done excluding South Africa. Table 13.4 shows a summary of these indicators. In 2009, Africa contributed 12% of the world oil production, but this production was highly concentrated (75%) to only four countries (Nigeria, Algeria, Angola and Libya) (BP 2010). Excluding them, in 2008 African countries imported 55% of their crude oil supply and 48% of their diesel oil supply (IEA 2010). Moreover, the dependence on imported fossil fuels is growing. Some countries are totally dependent of Table 13.4 Africas main indicators (2008) and its comparison in the world; the second comparison was done excluding South Africa Africa/world (Africa-SA)/world Indicator Data Unit (%) (%) Population 984.3 Million 14.7 14.0 Gross domestic product 876.2 Billion 2000 USD 2.2 1.7 (GDP) GDP/capita 890 USD (2000)/capita 14.7 12.2 Total primary energy 655.4 Million toe 5.3 4.2 supply (TPES) TPES/GDP 0.75 toe/1,000 USD 250 251 Total electricity 562.1 TWh 3.0 1.8 consumption Electricity/capita 571 kWh/capita 20.5 12.7 CO2 emissions 889.9 MtCO2/year 3.0 1.9 0.9 tCO2/capita 20.5 13.5 CO2/capita CO2/GDP 1.02 kgCO2/US$ (2000) 139.7 413.0 Source: IEA (2010)

156


imported oil, such as Kenya and Zambia, and others are totally dependent on imported diesel, such as Mozambique, Tanzania and Zimbabwe (IEA 2010). In all Sub-Saharan countries the prices of gasoline and diesel to consumers are amongst the highest in the world (GTZ 2009). Most Africans live in rural areas and a large share of the population lives below the poverty line of 1 US$/day. In general, people living in rural areas have constrained access to energy services and both agricultural productivity and life conditions are deeply impacted by the lack of clean/potable water and limited energy supply (both electricity and liquid/gaseous fuels).

13.5

Biofuels Potential in Africa and the Challenge of Export

It has been suggested that African countries have the potential to become important producers and exporters of biomass energy, and that the bulk of the production can occur in abandoned and marginal land (Hoogwijk et al. 2009). In some countries the conditions for bioenergy production are favourable due to the suitable climate and the availability of arable land and water resources. For instance, in the context of the COMPETE project (Competence Platform for Bioenergy in Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems in Africa2), about 180 Mha land were evaluated as potentially available and suitable for bioenergy production. This land availability was identified in semiarid and arid regions in eight countries (South Africa, Kenya, Botswana, Mali, Tanzania, Zambia, Burkina Faso and Senegal) (COMPETE 2009). As mentioned, some African countries are highly dependent on imported fossil fuels and the access to energy services is precarious, mainly in rural areas. Here an important question is if biofuels would be able to help African countries to overcome these difficulties. And what should be the priority: small-scale production to meet local demands and improve life conditions or large-scale production for export? Obviously there is no single answer to these questions, and priorities and strategies differ from country to country. Those who support the production aiming at the international market usually claim it is necessary to generate jobs and income and a common argument is that small-scale agricultural activities are not able to sufficiently foster the economy. But what are the opportunities for African countries in this new international market? It was previously shown that international biofuels trade is still in a preliminary stage and that markets have been distorted by trade barriers and unfair trade practices. The main consumer markets are in the US and EU, where the main aims are to improve security of energy supply and to preserve the interests of the agricultural sector. The US market is much larger than the European, but has been less open to imports. Few countries have exported biofuels to the US (none of them from Africa) and trade priority focus is on countries with trade agreements. In Europe, the share

2

For more information, see www.compete-bioafrica.net

13


157

Fig. 13.5 Exports of fuel ethanol by Brazil from January 2004 to November 2010 (Source: MDIC 2010)

of imports is larger and the list of supplier countries is more diversified, but again the participation of African countries has been very small. For example, in 2009 five countries exported fuel ethanol to Europe, totaling less than 70 ML, (i.e. about 1.5% of the total volume imported by EU countries) (FO Licht 2010). By contrast, in the same year total exports of ethanol to African states were close to 280 ML, with Nigeria being the main destination and Brazil the main exporter (FO Licht 2010). Many African countries benefit from preferential trade agreements (in particular the Generalized System of Preferences, Everything but Arms, and the Cotonou Agreement) giving them a better access to EU and US markets (Mitchell 2011). Potentially this could improve their position on the world market, but the problem of high production costs and domestic subsidies to farmers in the importing countries remains. For example, as it was previously shown, Brazil has faced difficulties competing on the international market in spite of its position as the country with the lowest ethanol production costs. Accordingly, new, less competitive producers are likely to face even more difficulties. Another important issue is the market volatility illustrated here by the volumes of ethanol exported by Brazil from January 2004 to November 2010 (see Fig. 13.5). Differently from a new producer and exporter country, in case of Brazil the income of ethanol exports is less important as the industry in Brazil produces sugar and ethanol, both for the domestic and the international market, and some mills are also selling surplus electricity. In addition, the impact of this volatility is lower as the amount

158


of ethanol exported is relatively low compared with the domestic consumption (see Table 13.3). This would not be the case of a small producer country with focus on the international market. On the other hand, the volatility of prices has been lower. The volatility on the international market shows the risk a producer country would face if its domestic market is not large enough for compensating strong fluctuations of external demand, or in case there is no income diversification. Another issue to be considered is that the market will demand the fulfilment of technical standards, and this can be a challenge. The first point to be observed is that so far there is not a common international standard, and in some cases this aspect has been pointed out as trade barrier. For instance, recently the EU defined biodiesel standards, including a maximum iodine level which in practice limits the use of soy oil and (to a lesser extent) palm oil (Oosterveer and Mol 2010). A second point to be highlighted is that developing countries have not actively participated in this discussion, and probably will be forced to accept further definitions. A third point is the doubt whether the imposed standards can be achieved by new producers at reasonable cost. More importantly, proper planning is the first and foremost challenge for the large-scale production of biofuels, as the biomass sector has far more actors than the conventional and well-established energy sectors (e.g. oil and electricity). In addition, the development of biofuels system requires a reliable set of suppliers of goods and services and the necessities of the whole production chain have to be identified upstream. These aspects show the importance of coordinated actions before and during the implementation of a large-scale biofuels industry. Here the example of Brazil should be seen with reservation, as the sugarcane industry was already well established when large-scale production of fuel ethanol started in the second half of the 1970s. Nevertheless, even with these favourable conditions the role of the Brazilian Government at that time, coordinating and assuming some responsibilities, was crucial. Related to this, the poor infrastructure in most African countries is a potential barrier for investments aiming at large-scale production of biofuels. Adequate roads and ports are essential, and the location of the producing mills in relation to the embarking points is an issue that needs careful consideration. In Brazil, the owners of the new sugarcane mills located in the central part of the country have been investing in pipelines to reduce logistics costs and GHG emissions. Yet, such investment is capital intensive and has been challenging for the producers. Finally, producing countries with ambition to export will have to pay increasing attention to the discussion on sustainability criteria and certification. As they are expected to become more and more important in the future, it is essential that developing countries are participating actively in the process. Currently, there are a number of initiatives, both public and private. However, given the size of the markets, their political power and the stage of development, the mandatory initiatives in EU (Renewable Energy Directive – RED) and the US (Renewable Fuel Standard 2 at the federal level and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in California) are likely to set the benchmark. In any case, independent certification will be required in order to prove the compliance with minimum criteria. In all existing initiatives, life-cycle GHG emissions play a vital role, and minimum reduction targets in comparison to fossil fuels have been defined. There are

13


159

still controversial aspects, such as the inclusion of emissions related to indirect impacts of land use change (ILUC). Despite the lack of solid scientific knowledge regarding this issue, it has already been decided in the US that ILUC impacts should be taken into account in the GHG balances of biofuels, and the same issue is under discussion in the EU. In general, discussed and implemented sustainability criteria go further in Europe than in the US. For example, the potential impacts on biodiversity, water resources and food supply, as well as the respect of human, labour and land rights have been addressed in the EU Renewable Energy Directive. Such mandatory initiatives have sometimes been blamed to work as trade barriers, aiming at constraining the production of biofuels in developing countries and, as consequence, preserving the interests of local producers in industrialized countries. Indeed, many developing nations therefore view attempts to introduce sustainability criteria as a form of “green imperialism” (Smeets and Faaij 2009). However, these initiatives can also be driven by honest concerns that large-scale production of biofuels only makes sense if their negative impacts are minimized. Regarding sustainability requirements the following aspects need to be addressed: (1) exporting countries seeking access to the European and Northern American markets sooner or later will have to pay attention to these requirements, (2) for developing countries, compliance with sustainability criteria will require even more planning, coordinated actions, international cooperation, data gathering, capacity building and investments, (3) small-scale production for export is likely to face much more difficulties, because the costs (e.g. of certification) will be proportionally higher and also because it will be more difficult to meet some of the standards producing on a smaller scale (e.g. low GHG emissions), (4) developing countries should be actively engaged in the definition processes of sustainability criteria and standards, in order to preserve their interests, and (5) despite all good purposes, such initiatives pose the threat to establish new trade barriers.

13.6

What Options are there for Africa?

Considering the aforementioned bottlenecks and that the bulk of the population lives in rural areas, it seems that the first priority for Africa should be the production of biofuels on a small-scale focusing on domestic demand. Such a strategy could improve the living conditions of farmers and reduce some of the problems connected with industrial biofuels production. For example, Robertson and Pinstrup-Andersen (2010) point to the land tenure controversy where investors from wealthy countries have been accused of “neo-colonialism” as they are acquiring vast tracts of land in poorer nations. Whilst countries like South Africa, Mozambique and Angola have approved policies for biofuels investment, in many other African economies national biofuels strategies are still lacking (Lerner et al. 2010). Such strategies however are imperative to monitor and judge the biofuels sector. A slower approach aiming at capacity building for small production units first may be easier to implement. Outgrower schemes could be another possibility

160


to combine small-scale farming with large-scale processing units. A number of pilot projects are currently undertaken with different feedstock (e.g. jatropha, sugarcane, palm oil) and some of them seem to be promising whilst others are struggling with the economic feasibility. For jatropha in Tanzania, for instance, it is expected that this kind of business model will remain the most important in the future, but many initiatives have faced difficulties in terms of unstable supply in combination with low yields (Caniëls and Romijn 2010). In general, it is too early to draw any definite conclusions. In the early stages of biofuels production a logical alternative is to take advantage of existing knowledge and of the infrastructure already available. For example, in countries with tradition in sugarcane production (South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique are amongst the major producer countries in Africa) the infrastructure and the sugarcane industry is more organized. Ethanol could be produced from molasses, as is the case of Malawi, where 30 ML of ethanol per year is produced and blended with gasoline, reducing fuel imports (Jumbe et al. 2009). In addition to this, a very important issue is that ethanol from sugarcane is still the best option amongst first generation biofuels in terms of efficiency. Considering the high manufacturing costs of ethanol from corn and wheat, production in some African countries could be feasible and in accordance with international sustainability. Mozambique, for example, has decided to use its capacity and existing know-how to expand its sugarcane area for large-scale ethanol production, including exports. Two bigger projects are currently under implementation with a predicted capacity of 430 million litres per year (Janssen et al. 2009). Nevertheless, in view of the high water requirements, potential impacts on water resources should be carefully evaluated, especially where intensive irrigation is required. To conclude, it seems more adequate for the majority of African economies to focus first on local markets rather than on exports, starting with blending at the regional level. This is in line with the conclusions of the COMPETE project, which highlight that priority should be given to small-scale projects aiming at rural electrification, water pumping and assuring the availability of transport fuels in agriculture. Nevertheless, in a second step, with improved conditions, large-scale production for blending at national level and also for export should be considered in order to capture the continent’s potential in terms of land, climate and labour resources. If not, African countries run the risk of becoming single producers (and exporters) of untreated lignocellulosic biomass, at low cost, for the production of second-generation biofuels in industrialized countries. To do this, capacity needs to be developed and the production should be sustainable according to international standards.

13.7

Conclusions

Biofuels production and trade are growing rapidly, but the contribution of Africa has been limited and this situation is expected to remain for some years. Despite efforts of some African countries, the short-term opportunities for biofuels trade are constrained

13


161

due to their small production, lack of infrastructure and not least existing distortions on the international market. In this sense, industrialized countries have not been proactive in encouraging trade. In addition, recent initiatives aiming at minimum sustainability requirements of biofuels production are still working as barriers for the production in Africa rather than as useful guidelines due to (1) the lack of appropriate data and limited human skills, (2) less competitive small-scale production, and (3) exclusion of African countries from the decision process. The potential of biofuels production in Africa is promising and production can occur with low negative impacts on the environment and on food supply, and with positive socio-economic impacts. Yet, it is a long process to exploit these opportunities. To conclude, the route that most African countries should follow is to first foster small-scale production. The expected benefits are the improvement of living standards, reinforcement of organizational skills in small communities and the dissemination of knowledge from successful cases. On the other hand, all African countries with potential for large-scale biofuels production should be prepared for a new context. In view of the biofuels targets in the northern hemisphere international trade will be crucial. Sustainable production of biofuels, respecting the limits imposed by the nature and taking the people’s welfare as first priority, will be a unique opportunity for fostering economic development in Africa. This is the challenge to be faced.

References ANP – The Brazilian National Agency for Oil, Natural Gas and Biofuels (2010). Information available at www.anp.gov.br BEN – Balanço Energetico Nacional (2010). Ministerio das Minas e Energia. Brasilia BP (2010) Statistical review of world energy 2010. Information available at www.bp.com Caniëls MCJ, Romijn H (2010) The Jatropha biofuels sector in Tanzania 2005–9: evolution towards sustainability? Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies (ECIS). http://cms.tm.tue.nl/Ecis/ Files/papers/wp2010/wp1004.pdf COMPETE (2009) Competence platform for bioenergy in arid and semi-arid ecosystems in Africa, reports of the project. Available at www.compete-bioafrica.net EIA-DOE (2010) U.S. Energy Information Administration/Department of Energy. Information available at www.eia.doe.gov E-EnergyMarket (2010). Information available at www.e-energymarket.com FO Licht (2010) World ethanol & biofuels report, vol. 8(18) Gardiner N (2009) Chemical forecaster 3Q09. Drewry Publishing; Drewry Shipping Consultants Ltd, London GTZ – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (2009) International fuel prices 2009. Available at www.gtz.de/en/themen/29957.htm Heinimö J, Junginger M (2009) Production and trading of biomass for energy – an overview of the global status. Biomass Bioenerg 33(9):1310–1320 Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, de Vries B, Turkenburg W (2009) Exploration of regional and global cost – supply curves of biomass energy from short-rotation crops at abandoned cropland and rest land under four IPCC SRES land-use scenarios. Biomass Bioenerg 33:26–43 IEA – International Energy Agency (2010). Information available at www.iea.org

162


Janssen R, Rutz D, Helm P, Woods J, Chavez RD (2009) Bioenergy for sustainable development in Africa – environmental and social aspects. Paper available at www.unido.org Jumbe CBL, Msiska FBM, Madjera M (2009) Biofuels development in Sub-Saharan Africa: are the policies conducive? Energy Policy 37:4980–4986 Lerner A, Matupa O, Mothlathledi F, Stiles G, Brown R (2010) SADC biofuels state of play study. An assessment of the Biofuel Sector Development in the Southern African Development Community. SADC Biofuel Taskforce. http://www.probec.org/fileuploads/fl11092010040316_ SADC_BIOFUELS_STATE_OF_PLAY_STUDY.pdf MAPA (2010) Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. Information available at www.agricultura.gov.br MDIC (2010) Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria e Comércio Exterior. Information available at www.mdic.gov.br (exports of commodities) Mitchell D (2011) Biofuels in Africa. Opportunities, prospects, and challenges. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington Oosterveer P, Mol APJ (2010) Biofuels, trade and sustainability: a review of perspectives for developing countries. Biofuels, Bioproducts Biorefining 4:66–76 REN21 – Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (2006) Renewable 2006 – global status report, Washington, DC REN21 – Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (2010) Renewable 2010 – global status report Robertson B, Pinstrup-Andersen P (2010) Global land acquisition: neo-colonialism or development opportunity? Food Secur 2:271–283 Rosillo-Calle F, Walter A (2006) Global market for bioethanol: historical trends and future prospects. Energ Sustain Dev X(1):18–30 Smeets E, Faaij A (2009) Synthesis report on international trade opportunities in Africa. Third periodic activity report; Annex 5-3-1. Available at www.compete-bioafrica.net Szwarc A (2010) Bioethanol: production, use and trade. Presentation at the 33rd IAEE Conference, Rio de Janeiro, June 2010 USDA – United States Department of Agriculture (2009) Gain Report – global agricultural information network. Argentina Biofuels Annual, Report number AR9018 Walter A, Rosillo-Calle F, Dolzan P, Piacente E, Cunha KB (2008) Perspectives on fuel ethanol consumption and trade. Biomass Bioenerg 32:730–748 Zarilli S (2006) The emerging biofuels market: regulatory, trade and development implications. In: UNCTAD—United Nations conference on trade and development, Geneva

Part III

Biomass Policies

Chapter 14

Keynote Introduction: Overview on Bioenergy Policies in Africa Rainer Janssen and Dominik Rutz

Abstract Primary policy drivers for bioenergy promotion in Africa include security of energy supply, a reduction of the foreign exchange burden of oil importing countries, as well as environmental benefits such as the restoration of degraded land, reduced land abandonment, and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the development of modern bioenergy systems offers opportunities to diversify agricultural production and to stimulate socio-economic development. On the other hand, concerns exist that bioenergy expansion in African countries may have severe negative socio-economic and environmental impacts. In order to minimise risks and maximise benefits, in recent years several African countries have launched initiatives to establish sound policy frameworks for bioenergy in order to ensure environmentally, economically and socially sustainable production, promotion and use of bioenergy. Nevertheless, fully functional legal and regulatory frameworks have not yet been established in African countries. The most advanced regulatory frameworks for bioenergy exist in South Africa and Mozambique with the Biofuels Industrial Strategy of the Republic of South Africa (enacted in 2007) and the National Biofuels Policy and Strategy (NBPS) published in May 2009 by the Government of Mozambique. Specific activities in the field of bioenergy sustainability certification as an essential component of the regulation of the bioenergy sector are performed in Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, and on regional level by the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). Keywords Africa • Bioenergy policies • Strategies • Regulatory frameworks • Institutional structures • Market regulation • Biofuel blending • Sustainability certification • Agro-ecological zoning

R. Janssen (*) • D. Rutz WIP Renewable Energies, Sylvensteinstr. 2, 81369, Munich, Germany e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]


165

166

14.1

R. Janssen and D. Rutz

Introduction

Primary policy drivers for bioenergy promotion in Africa include security of energy supply, a reduction of the foreign exchange burden of oil importing countries, as well as environmental benefits such as the restoration of degraded land, reduced land abandonment, and the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Furthermore, the development of modern bioenergy systems offers opportunities for investment and infrastructure improvements in agriculture with the promise to diversify agricultural production and to create additional employment and thus to stimulate socio-economic development (Janssen et al. 2009). On the other hand, concerns exist that bioenergy expansion in African countries may have severe negative impacts on biodiversity and the use of natural resources through increasing competition over land and water resources. Rising prices of agricultural commodities may negatively affect food security of the poor in developing countries and the implementation of large-scale bioenergy projects may cause negative social impacts such as conflicts over land ownership and displacement of rural communities. In order to minimise the risks of negative impacts and to maximise the benefits in the immediate and long-term, sound legal and regulatory frameworks for bioenergy are needed to ensure environmentally, economically and socially sustainable production, promotion and use of bioenergy. Such frameworks need to be closely linked with measures aiming at environmental protection as well as economic and social development, such as the establishment of safety nets to protect the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people to ensure their access to adequate food (FAO 2008). This chapter provides an overview of existing initiatives for the formulation of regulatory frameworks for bioenergy on the African continent. After a brief introduction to key elements of appropriate regulatory frameworks, current activities on national, regional, and African Union level are presented.

14.2

Key Elements of Bioenergy Regulatory Frameworks

Regulatory tools for the promotion of bioenergy usually consist of a combination of policies and legislation including measures to encourage private investment in bioenergy industries and financial assistance to public or private investors from national, bilateral or multilateral sources (FAO 2007). The key elements of national regulatory frameworks for bioenergy include legislation establishing institutional structures, regulating the biofuels market, creating incentives, regulating trade, introducing sustainability certification schemes, and fostering research and development. With respect to the establishment of institutional structures, national bioenergy legislation typically designates a state agency to be responsible for promoting the necessary investments and steering national bioenergy programmes. This may include technical committees responsible for setting of standards. With respect to

14

Keynote Introduction: Overview on Bioenergy Policies in Africa

167

newly created entities in African countries it is important that these agencies have sufficient technical capacities. Furthermore, efficient coordination mechanisms with other relevant state agencies need to be put in place to ensure that bioenergy policies and legislation are effectively implemented and regulation is consistent with international commitments and other government policies. Finally, broad cooperation with the civil society is necessary to facilitate widest participation and transparency in decision making. Bioenergy policies and legislation also often contain provisions on market regulation such as biofuel blending requirements (i.e. mandated percentage of biofuels to be mixed with conventional fuels), and fixed prices for bioenergy services (including biofuels). The regulation of blending requirements, however, should take into consideration local and national market conditions in African countries. Incentives are essential components of regulatory measures to encourage the production, use and trade of bioenergy. Such incentives may include exemptions from value added taxes, corporate taxes, and excise taxes. Furthermore, government financial institutions are required to provide financial services and benefits to local companies engaged in the bioenergy sector, and incentive schemes should focus on the provision of micro-credit facilities or low-interest loans and loan guarantees to farmers for the cultivation of crops or to build their own processing facilities. Incentives in African countries, however, should be carefully selected to stimulate investment without creating negative socio-economic (e.g. reduced labour standards, displacement of rural communities) and environmental (e.g. deforestation, soil degradation, water depletion) impacts. Trade regulations may include import tariffs as well as mandates for bioenergy producers to buy feedstock from local farmers. Even though such regulations may distort trade, they can serve to safeguard the creation of local and national bioenergy markets and contribute to local value creation and rural development. Sustainability certification is an important tool to ensure bioenergy development with maximised benefits and minimised negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. Since the 1990s a variety of sustainability standards and certification schemes have been developed (mainly in the EU) for the production, processing and trade of biomass and agricultural products. More recently, sustainability schemes are introduced which specifically address the production and use of (liquid) biofuels (Froger et al. 2010; Ecofys 2009; BTG 2008). Within the European Union the development of the biofuels sector as well as exports of biofuels into Europe are mainly governed by the Renewable Energy Directive (RED 2009) which came into force in June 2009. The RED sets a target for all Member States to achieve a minimum of 10% renewable energy consumption in transport by 2020. Biofuels that count towards the target will have to meet sustainability requirements, defined in Article 17 of the RED. In order to proof compliance with sustainability requirements, regulatory frameworks in African countries may use existing sustainability schemes such as the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification System (ISCC) originating from Germany, the Dutch sustainability scheme (NTA 8080), the RSB (Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels) sustainability scheme, and the RSPO (Roundtable on

168


Sustainable Palm Oil) sustainability scheme for sustainable palm oil production. Alternatively, African countries may develop national sustainability schemes with specific reference to national framework conditions and development priorities. Bioenergy regulatory frameworks often also contain provisions for research and development such as the obligation for an assignment of increased national funds. Enhanced efforts in bioenergy research and development are regarded as essential for the development of strong and sustainable bioenergy sectors in African countries.

14.3

National Bioenergy Regulatory Frameworks in African Countries

Currently, several African governments are in the process of developing bioenergy regulatory frameworks with the aim to promote a truly sustainable development of the bioenergy sector. The following sections provide an overview of on-going initiatives in selected African countries.

14.3.1

Bioenergy Policies in Benin

In 2007, a feasibility study was carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Mines, Energy and Water of the Democratic Republic of Benin to elaborate a strategy for the production and use of biofuels (Cocchi et al. 2009). This draft Biofuel Promotion Strategy states the general vision to develop biofuel production and supply chains as drivers for economic growth and poverty reduction with positive effects on food crops and the environment. The main objectives of biofuels development in Benin are to contribute to the revival of the agricultural sector, to improve the trade balance, to increase farmers’ income, and to reduce pressure on forestry resources. In June 2008, important steps towards the development of a national regulatory framework for biofuels were taken through the adoption of two decrees, namely Decree 360/2008 “Nomination of a National Commission for the Promotion of Biofuels” and Decree 361/2008 “General conditions for the installation of biofuel companies in Benin”. Decree 360 defines the general conditions for biofuel production in Benin aiming at maximum benefits and minimum negative impacts in the country. The export of un-processed agricultural feedstock is prohibited and the government reserves the right to identify suitable feedstock crops. Priority will be given to small-scale feedstock production by local farmers, preferably in a contract farming model. Furthermore, production, processing and trade of feedstock and biofuels in Benin are subject to authorisation by the government upon approval by the National Commission for the Promotion of Biofuels.

14


169

In the coming years, the National Commission will be responsible for the elaboration of a National Biofuel Action Plan guiding towards the establishment of a regulatory framework for the biofuels sector in Benin.

14.3.2

Bioenergy Policies in Ghana

In recent years Ghana has gained considerable experience in bioenergy technologies, namely improved cookstoves, improved charcoal production technologies, briquetting, co-generation using sawmill and palm residues, biogas using municipal/farm waste and animal dung, gasification, and biodiesel based on jatropha, oil palm, soya bean oil, and coconut oil (Ahiataku-Togobo 2009). The main objectives for bioenergy development in Ghana include to increase access to modern energy services, to promote the use of improved cookstoves and charcoal production technologies, to support sustained regeneration of woody biomass resources through legislation and fiscal incentives, to support development of indigenous alternative transportation fuel industry based on bioenergy resources (biofuels) to replace petroleum-based fuels, and to enact legislation that will create demand for biofuels including appropriate pricing of biofuels. The short to medium term policy actions in Ghana focus on the development of a Renewable Energy (RE) Bill to create a RE-friendly regulatory environment, to promote innovative market delivery models, to establish favourable pricing policies for RE, and to create awareness on the benefits of renewable energies including bioenergy and biofuels. Thereby, the target for this policy development is to stimulate private sector participation and to increase energy access. In order to avoid negative impacts of bioenergy development on the local population, the Government of Ghana is taking measures to ensure that large-scale production of biofuels creates commercial benefits for the population and does not affect food production. This includes flexibility of replanting farmland for food production if food security is threatened and the allocation of degraded and arid dry lands for jatropha production. Additionally, feedstock other than jatropha is promoted such as oil palm, groundnut, cassava or other energy crops with additional economic value and existing cultivation experience in Africa. In September 2009, the Ghanaian Ministry of Energy published a Draft Renewable Energy Bill (Government of Ghana 2009) aimed to provide an institutional and regulatory framework for the promotion, development of renewable energy for the generation and supply of electricity. This legislation will include a feed-in tariff scheme with rates (which still need to be defined) guaranteed for 20 years, purchase obligations for electricity utilities, fiscal incentives, as well as the establishment of a Renewable Energy Fund. The Renewable Energy Bill aiming at increasing renewable energies to 10% in the national energy mix was discussed by the Ghanaian cabinet in September 2010 and it is expected to be passed into law in 2011.

170

14.3.3


Bioenergy Policies in Kenya

Recent and on-going initiatives to develop a Kenyan biofuel policy are guided by the vision to increase access to energy through sustainable biofuel production and to reduce the import of fossil fuels by 25% by 2030. The main mission of the policy is to explore agro-energetic resources to stimulate energy diversification and to contribute to social and economic development, especially in rural areas. The first steps of the policy development process in Kenya focused on the elaboration of a biodiesel strategy, followed by a bioethanol strategy with the final aim of establishing a National Biofuels Policy. In 2006 the Kenyan Ministry of Energy (MoE) set up the National Biofuels Committee (NBC) to coordinate activities of stakeholders in the biofuels sector. In May 2008, a draft Biodiesel Strategy was published by NBC for comments by stakeholders, and in August 2008 the Kenya Biodiesel Association (KBDA) was registered as representation of all actors in the biodiesel value chain. By June 2009, a draft Bioethanol Strategy was finalized highlighting Kenya’s general capacity to produce sufficient ethanol fuel from molasses to blend 10% ethanol in conventional gasoline. In April 2009, the National Biofuel Policy sub-committee was formed within NBC to develop a combined biofuel policy including biodiesel, bioethanol, biogas, and solid biomass. This policy needs to be aligned with the vision and mission of the National Energy Policy (Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2004) and the Energy Act 2006 (Muok et al. 2008). During 2010, extensive stakeholder consultations were held for the finalization of the Kenyan biofuel policy. On-going land mapping and zoning initiatives need to be refined to identify suitable areas for different feedstocks, and to allocate areas for food production and high conservation areas as unavailable for biofuels production (Davison 2010).

14.3.4

Bioenergy Policies in Mali

During recent years the Government of Mali as well as the civil society in Mali has shown considerable interest in the development of a strong and sustainable bioenergy sector. This development is embedded in several policy documents of the Government of Mali such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy with the three main objectives for the period 2007–2011 to develop infrastructures and the productive sector, to consolidate structural reforms, and to strengthen the social sector with respect to education, health, and water access. The achievement of these objectives addresses several priority areas of which three are closely interlinked with the development of a sustainable bioenergy sector, namely food security and rural development, development of small and medium size enterprises, and the protection and sustainable management of natural resources.

14


171

In 2006, the National Strategy on Renewable Energy was published by the Ministry of Energy and Water (MEE) stating the targets of 10% reduction in fossil fuel imports by 2014, 15% by 2019, and 20% by 2024. This strategy includes the following main objectives: (1) improve access to energy especially from renewable sources, (2) rationalise the use of existing energy sources, (3) increase efficiency of the use of existing natural resources to produce energy, (4) promote the sustainable use of biomass resources through the conservation and protection of forests, and (5) strengthen government capacity and streamline administrative procedures within the energy sector. Biofuels are foreseen to play a major role to achieve the objectives of the National Strategy on Renewable Energy. The National Agency for the Development of Biofuels (ANADEB), legally established on 5th June 2009, was set-up as the implementing agency of the National Strategy on Biofuels in Mali. The main responsibilities of ANADEB include the establishment of a centralised and harmonised framework for biofuel promotion, the increase of technical and regulatory capacities, and the creation of a dialogue between main public and private actors. Furthermore, ANADEB is concerned with the enacting of production licensing requirements and technical quality standards for biofuels as well as the promotion of trade between international partners in biofuels. Thereby, the National Strategy on Biofuels states the importance of ensuring the environmental, economic and social sustainability of the development of the biofuels sector in Mali, and ANADEB is currently involved in the elaboration of national sustainability criteria and a biofuel certification scheme suitable for the specific framework conditions in Mali. In the framework of the project Mainstreaming Sustainability in the Biofuel Sector in Mali, co-funded by the Global Sustainable Biomass Fund administered by NL Agency, The Netherlands, an intensive stakeholder consultation has been launched with the establishment of cross-sector multi-stakeholder working groups. On 22–23 July 2010 a stakeholder workshop was organised in Bamako in order to elaborate initial recommendations on the development of a sustainability scheme for Mali. It was recommended to establish a committee within ANADEB responsible for the coordination of stakeholder contributions for the formulation of the Malian sustainability scheme. Future work includes the identification and prioritisation of potential negative impacts and a concise list of sustainability concerns which need to be addressed to guarantee the sustainability of the biofuels sector in Mali (Janssen and Rutz 2010). The national sustainability scheme in Mali is foreseen to be implemented by 2012 under the guidance of ANADEB.

14.3.5

Bioenergy Policies in Mozambique

The Government of Mozambique is very actively encouraging the introduction of bioenergy (biofuels) in order to save foreign currency, to reduce environmental problems of the increasing transport sector, to reduce dependence on unpredictable

172


and volatile world market oil prices and to contribute to rural development through generating employment and increasing income opportunities (Mataveia 2009). The main aim of bioenergy development in Mozambique is to foster large-scale production of biofuels for national consumption and exports. This shall be supported by the gradual introduction of biofuels blending with petrol and diesel starting with low blends of 5–10%. Furthermore, the Government of Mozambique supports biofuel based rural electrification projects and places high priority on increasing access to energy for the (rural) poor by promoting modern energy services such as jatropha oil, gelfuel and modern wood-stoves for lighting and cooking. The conditions for the development of the bioenergy sector in Mozambique are favourable due to its suitable climate for the cultivation of sugarcane and other energy crops. Mozambique has 7 million ha of available arable land, abundant labour and water resources for the production of bioenergy without threatening food production and food security. On 21 May 2009 the Government of Mozambique published a National Biofuels Policy and Strategy (NBPS) in its official journal (Government of Mozambique 2009). This policy states the clear vision to establish the country’s biofuels sector to contribute to energy security and socio-economically sustainable development. The institutional framework will include the creation of a National Programme for Biofuel Development to give financial support to activities and projects. Furthermore, a National Commission for Biofuels (CNB) will be set up to supervise the implementation of the biofuel strategy. In order to set up a national market for biofuels in Mozambique a Biofuel Commercialisation Programme (PCB) will be established to purchase ethanol and biodiesel for blending with fossil fuels. With respect to biofuels export Mozambique will act as exporter of processed biofuels (i.e. biodiesel instead of vegetable oil) to enable local producers to add value to their production. It is expected that biofuel expansion (450,000 ha, compulsory blending of E10, B5) will generate substantial macroeconomic benefits including 150,000 new jobs. Prior to the elaboration of the biofuels policy the Government of Mozambique has embarked in a detailed resource assessment and research on promising feedstock options. It was concluded that biofuel production in Mozambique shall be based on sugarcane and sweet sorghum for ethanol, and jatropha and coconut for biodiesel. Furthermore, the Government of Mozambique performed an agro-ecological zoning initiative to specifically identify land available for food and for bioenergy production. The government will place strict limitations on land approval and it will identify selected agro-ecological areas for biofuel production which will be the only areas permitted for production. Thereby, guiding principles will be to avoid the use of basic food crops and monocultures, and to favour biofuel development that enhances biodiversity. The land zoning from 2008 identifying about 7 million ha of land available for commercial agricultural activities was performed at a scale of 1:1,000,000 (IIAM and DNTF 2008), and a more accurate zoning is currently carried out on a scale of 1:250,000.

14


173

With the approach of agro-ecological zoning a potential conflict between food and fuel production can be avoided. It is now in the responsibility of the government to implement this land allocation method even though potential biofuel producers will be likely to object and challenge this limitation to their business development. In order to ensure the environmental, economic and social sustainability of biofuels production, the policy states that all actors participating in the Biofuel Commercialisation Programme need to be certified to prove that their operations are in line with national norms and criteria. Priority is given to the development of a common approach to sustainability criteria in line with global initiatives such as the Round Table for Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) and the sustainability criteria included in the recently adopted European Renewable Energy Directive. The Government of Mozambique has set up a Working Group within the national Biofuels Task Force on “Sustainability Criteria and Development Models” to elaborate national sustainability principles. This initiative is supported by the bilateral SADC (Southern African Development Community) Programme for Biomass Energy Conservation (ProBEC) of the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ). First drafts of sustainability principles have already been elaborated (Lerner 2009). In conclusion, Mozambique is amongst the leading countries regarding bioenergy development in Africa. A concise overview of recent biofuel developments in Mozambique is presented by Schut et al. (2010) highlighting the need for adequate policy tools and instruments to ensure that biofuels will create maximum opportunities and benefits for the population in Mozambique.

14.3.6

Bioenergy Policies in South Africa

South Africa was the first country in Africa to initiate a regulatory framework for renewable energies with the launch of a White Paper in 2003 targeting 4% of renewable energy by 2013 (Government of South Africa 2003). In order to reach this target the White Paper recognises the need to create an enabling environment through the introduction of fiscal and financial support mechanisms, the development of physical infrastructure for grid access, and the creation of an appropriate legal and regulatory framework to encourage the entry of multiple Independent Power Producers into the current electricity sector and stimulate RE market creation. The approach to RE taken in South Africa foresees the facilitation of “early win” investments in commercially proven technologies that can demonstrate the benefits of renewable energy at low level of national subsidies. During 2009, the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) announced the South Africa Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff programme (REFIT) to further stimulate the renewable energy sector in South Africa. NERSA also published regulatory guidelines, a draft power purchase agreement (PPA) and rules on selection criteria for renewable energy projects under the REFIT programme. In September 2010, the government procurement process for renewable energy based electricity production was officially launched. Private project developers are

174


invited to respond to a Request for Information (RFI) by submission of feasibility studies for wind, solar, biomass, biogas, landfill gas and small hydropower projects. Complementing abovementioned legal and regulatory framework for the electricity sector with the aim to contribute to the RE target of the White Paper, the government enacted the Biofuels Industrial Strategy of the Republic of South Africa in 2007 (Government of South Africa 2007). With respect to the 2006 draft strategy document the penetration level of biofuels by 2013 was revised down from 4.5% to 2% mainly due to food security concerns. Crops proposed for biofuel production include sugarcane and sugarbeet for ethanol and sunflower, canola and soy beans for biodiesel, whereas maize and jatropha have been excluded due to negative impacts on food security and potential invasiveness. A detailed analysis of the implications and results of the Biofuels Industrial Strategy is presented in Chap. 16 of this book.

14.3.7

Bioenergy Policies in Tanzania

The vision set forth by the Government of Tanzania for the development of the bioenergy sector is to contribute to the replacement of fossil transport fuels and to stimulate socio-economic development through rural electrification projects. Benefits expected from the implementation of bioenergy projects are to improve energy security, reduce oil imports and foreign exchange burdens, as well as to provide alternative markets for farmers creating new jobs and income generation opportunities (Kiwele 2009). The conditions for the development of the bioenergy sector in Tanzania are favourable due to its suitable climate, as well as available arable land and water resources. In 2005, the Government of Tanzania established a Biofuels Taskforce under the lead of the Ministry of Energy and Minerals with the participation of a variety of government ministries and institutions. The National Biofuels Taskforce has the mandate to develop the National Biofuels Policy and to elaborate interim Biofuel Guidelines that will be used until the Biofuel Policy is fully developed. The institutional difference between the Biofuel Guidelines and the Biofuel Policy is that the guidelines are approved by the cabinet and that the policy is to be approved by the parliament (FAO 2010). The Biofuel Guidelines were approved in December 2009 and address the key issues of institutional framework, application procedure for investors, land acquisition and use, contract farming, and sustainability of biofuel production. The guidelines focus on ensuring socio-economic sustainability of bioenergy development, the avoidance of food-fuel conflicts, and sufficient value creation for the local rural population. Different land acquisition and tenure systems are introduced for bioenergy projects including shorter leasing periods of 5–25 years, the possibility to use land as equity, and mandatory villager shares in projects. Furthermore, investors will be required to use part of the land allocated for the production of food crops. Finally, contract farming, outgrower schemes and community engagement will be promoted,

14


175

and Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) will be required for the implementation of bioenergy projects. As in the case of Mozambique, these measures are suitable to avoid conflict between food and fuel production. However, the Government of Tanzania will have to strictly implement these measures, if necessary against the pressure of biofuel investors. The guidelines furthermore identified necessary improvements of the institutional framework such as the establishment of a Biofuels One Stop Centre under the Tanzanian Investment Center (TIC), a Biofuels Steering Committee chaired by the Ministry of Energy and Minerals and assisted by a Biofuels Technical Advisory Group (BTAG). Currently, the Government of Tanzania is engaged in the implementation of a Biofuels Action Plan including a thorough review of existing policies and legal and regulatory frameworks with the aim to develop the National Biofuel Policy in the coming years. This action plan includes agro-ecological zoning of land available for bioenergy production, capacity building programmes for government departments and other stakeholders, as well as awareness creation initiatives for the population. More details on biofuel policies in Tanzania are presented in Chap. 15 of this book.

14.3.8

Bioenergy Policies in Zambia

The vision of the Government of Zambia is to ensure environmentally sustainable exploitation of biomass resources in order to realise supply security and stable prices of transport fuels, to increase investment in the agricultural sector and to contribute to socio-economic development. Thereby, specific policy goals are to improve the management of woodlands for sustainable firewood production, to improve the efficiency of charcoal production, and to promote alternatives to firewood (Kalumiana 2009). Activities under preparation by the Government of Zambia include the elaboration of appropriate financial and fiscal instruments for stimulating production and use of biomass, the implementation of public awareness campaigns, and the development of policies and a regulatory framework for biomass. Also in Zambia the conditions for the development of the bioenergy sector are favourable. The current dependency of the country on food imports is mainly caused by the lack of infrastructure and investment in the agricultural sector. Therefore, bioenergy is seen as an excellent opportunity to significantly enhance the production potential of feedstock for both food and biomass production. The Ministry of Energy and Water Development is elaborating a long-term Energy Strategy (2009–2030) that includes biofuels as priority sub-sector. Current policy measures include detailed assessments of available resources and market demand for bioenergy, the elaboration of an efficient legal and institutional framework, and the formulation of incentives to stimulate investments in the bioenergy sector.

176


Furthermore, in order to establish a national market for biodiesel, a blending mandate of biodiesel in diesel is currently under negotiation within the Government of Zambia. So far, no specific initiatives have been implemented on how to guarantee socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy projects. In this field close cooperation with the Environmental Council is foreseen and Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) will be required for bioenergy projects. Further activities to ensure sustainability (such as measures under implementation in Mozambique and Tanzania) are thus urgently needed to provide guidance to the development of the bioenergy sector.

14.3.9

Bioenergy Policies in Other African Countries

Due to the limitations of the present book chapter, this section presents very brief information about bioenergy policies in other African countries (Lerner et al. 2010; Government of Senegal 2007; Sambo 2008). In Angola the parliament has approved the proposed Biofuel Policy and Biofuel Strategy in 2010. The former Government of Madagascar had elaborated a bill concerning the transformation, transportation, storage and use of biofuels, which has not yet been introduced in the parliament. Malawi is using the comprehensive Energy Act from 2004 to govern biofuels development. Namibia has published a National Bio-Oil Road Map strategy document. Bioenergy policies in Nigeria include the Renewable Energy Component of the National Energy Policy (2003), a draft Renewable Energy Masterplan (2007), as well as a pilot fuel ethanol programme by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation based on cassava and sugarcane as feedstock. In July 2007, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of Senegal launched the Special Biofuel Programme aiming at large-scale jatropha cultivation to contribute to energy security and sustainable socio-economic development. Swaziland has drafted both a strategy and action plan but the documents are yet to be adopted. Finally, biofuels development in Zimbabwe has occurred through actions by individual ministries or parastatals as the National Energy Policy makes no specific reference to biofuels.

14.4

Regional and African Union Level Policy Initiatives

The importance of integrating national initiatives in African countries to develop a regulatory framework for bioenergy on a broader regional and pan-African level is underlined in Chap. 18 of this book. Such integration is necessary to streamline African interests and to ensure maximum benefits and minimum negative environmental and socio-economic impacts of the development of global bioenergy markets in the African context.

14


14.4.1

177

Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Policy Initiatives

The SADC biofuel strategy completed in 2005 stresses the need for exploring the potential of implementing biofuel initiatives in SADC countries and calls on all members to develop biofuels national strategies taking into account opportunities and constrains on the sector (SADC 2005). A SADC Biofuels Task Force was established in 2008 with the mandate to develop a competitive and sustainable biofuels industry within southern Africa. Biofuels will be used as a platform for the sustainable development of the SADC region, for enhancing energy security, renewable energy development, contributing to tackling climate change and poverty alleviation. The Task Force also aims to assist in resolving possible conflicts between production of crops for fuel versus for food. SADC actively supports the development of national biofuel strategies through its technical advisors and it has commissioned a policy development support tool (crop decision making tool) which can be used by Member States for the development of biofuel policies and implementation strategies. In 2010, the SADC Biofuel State of Play Study was published with support of the German development agency GTZ under the Programme for Basic Energy Conservation (ProBEC). The study provides a profound assessment of the biofuel sector development in southern African countries as well as the approved SADC Sustainability Framework for Biofuels (Lerner et al. 2010). The following recommendations for SADC Member States are stated: • Develop a nationally appropriate sustainability framework to ensure that benefits of biofuel production and use are realised and national agricultural productivity is increased. • Develop enabling national and regional policies to ensure political commitment and a long-term integration of biofuels into the overall development plans and policies. • Continue and expand support for research, development and dissemination to develop SADC appropriate technologies, feedstock varieties and production models. • Develop win-win benefit sharing structures and partnership models to ensure that local communities benefit more than only engaging as wage labour. • Promote investment in biofuels and crop diversification that includes biofuel crops around existing farming activities without compromising food needs.

14.4.2

West African Policy Initiatives

Commissioned by UEMOA (Economic and Monetary Union of West Africa) and the Rural Hub for West and Central Africa the “Sustainable Bioenergy Report in

178


UEMOA Member Countries” published in October 2008 concluded that donor and host country investments in bioenergy can reduce the exposure of West African countries to high food and oil prices and open up new economic opportunities in clean energy development (UEMOA 2008). A summary of findings of this report on bioenergy opportunities in the UEMOA nations Benin, Burkina-Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo is presented in Chap. 17. In the field of financing, the African Biofuels Renewable Energy Fund (ABREF) was set up to help overcome barriers and to facilitate flows of investment into African biofuel and renewable energy projects to promote sustainable development and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It is first phase of implementation, ABREF target countries will be the ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) countries Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo. Finally, the Government of Senegal has taken the leadership in the Association of Non-Oil Producing Countries (“Pays Africains Non-Producteurs de Pétrole” (PANPP), or the so-called Green OPEC), established in 2006 uniting 15 African countries to exchange experiences, technologies and knowledge for the development of biofuel industries. One of the main objectives of PANPP constitutes the creation of institutional, organisational and financial instruments to promote the large-scale introduction of biofuel production in the entire continent.

14.4.3

African Union Level Initiatives

In July 2007 the African Union Commission (AUC), the Government of Brazil and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) jointly organised The First High-level Biofuels Seminar in Africa in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, under the theme ‘Sustainable Bio-fuels Development in Africa’. This seminar was organised in the framework of the 2004–2007 Strategic Plan of the AUC in the field of new and renewable energies. The 8th Assembly of the African Union Commission meeting in Addis Ababa in January 2007, endorsing the measures adopted by the African Ministers in charge of Hydrocarbons (oil and gas) at their 1st Conference held in Cairo on 14 December 2006, requested the AUC to elaborate policies and strategies for the development of clean, new and renewable energies, particularly biofuels, as an alternative solution to hydrocarbons, in response to the rise in oil prices which has adverse effects on the economies of African countries. The seminar key objectives were to (1) brief policymakers, the private sector, regional institutions and other stakeholders on the potential, risks and trade-offs of developing biofuels in Africa; (2) facilitate sharing of experiences in developing biofuels amongst countries in Africa and between Africa and Brazil, other countries and regions; (3) explore the potential and challenges to the dissemination of priority

14


179

Fig. 14.1 The Addis Ababa Declaration on Sustainable Biofuels Development in Africa (Source: African Union 2007)

biofuels technologies; and (4) consult key stakeholders towards developing a programme of action for sustainable biofuels development. Based on the plenary and thematic sessions and Ministerial Roundtable discussions of the First High-level Biofuels Seminar in Africa, the seminar participants agreed upon the following recommendations laid down in The Addis Ababa Declaration on Sustainable Biofuels Development in Africa (see Fig. 14.1).

180


The Addis Ababa Declaration underlines the importance attributed on AUC level to the sustainable development of a biofuels sector in Africa. However, information on recent AUC activities in the field of biofuels is difficult to access.

14.5

Conclusions and Way Forward

In recent years several African countries have launched initiatives to establish sound policy frameworks for bioenergy in order to ensure environmentally, economically and socially sustainable production, promotion and use of bioenergy. Nevertheless, fully functional legal and regulatory frameworks have not yet been established in African countries posing the danger of negative environmental and socio-economic impacts of un-regulated development of the bioenergy sector. The most advanced regulatory frameworks for bioenergy exist in South Africa and Mozambique with the Biofuels Industrial Strategy of the Republic of South Africa (enacted in 2007) and the National Biofuels Policy and Strategy (NBPS) published in May 2009 by the Government of Mozambique. Specific activities in the field of bioenergy sustainability certification as an essential component of the regulation of the bioenergy sector are performed in Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, and on regional level by the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). In Mali, a sustainability scheme suitable for the specific national framework conditions in elaborated under the guidance of the National Agency for the Development of Biofuels (ANADEB) founded in June 2009. The Government of Mozambique has set up a Working Group within the national Biofuels Task Force on “Sustainability Criteria and Development Models” to elaborate national sustainability principles. In Tanzania, sustainability aspects are addressed in the Biofuels Guidelines (approved in December 2009) until the national Biofuels Policy is fully developed. On SADC level a Sustainability Framework for Biofuels was approved in 2010 with the mandate for SADC Member States to translate this framework into nationally appropriate sustainability schemes. On the way forward towards the development of a sustainable bioenergy sector in Africa it is recommended that before an African country develops new legislation relating to bioenergy, it should have a well-considered and clear policy on the subject. Next, the existing legal framework should be analysed, the gaps and weaknesses identified and the challenges, threats and opportunities examined. Thereby, it is of crucial importance to carefully integrate policies for land use, agriculture and energy and align them with policies for rural development, transport and finance. Furthermore, bioenergy development in African countries will only find its proper environmental context and agricultural scale if convergence with biodiversity, GHG emissions, and water use policies is achieved.

14


181

References African Union (2007) The addis ababa declaration on sustainable biofuels development in Africa. The first high-level biofuels seminar in Africa ‘sustainable bio-fuels development in Africa’, 30 July–1 Aug 2007. Available at: http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Services/ Energy_and_Climate_Change/Renewable_Energy/Conference_Ethiopia/Declaration.pdf Ahiataku-Togobo W (2009) Bioenergy policy implementation in Ghana. Presentation at COMPETE conference, Brussels, Belgium, 24–25 Nov 2009. Available at: http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/ BTG (2008) Sustainability criteria & certification systems for biomass production. Report prepared for EC DG TREN, Final report, Feb 2008 Cocchi M, Grassi G, Onibon A, Grassi A (2009) State of the art of the development of a National biofuel promotion strategy in the Democratic Republic of Benin. In: Proceedings of the 17th European biomass conference and exhibition, Hamburg, pp 2484–2486 Davison SC (2010) Biofuels policy development in Kenya. Presentation at World Biofuels Market, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 17 Mar 2010 Ecofys (2009) Development of feedstock sustainability standards. Report commissioned by the Renewable FA, Nov 2009 FAO (2007) Recent trends in the law and policy of bioenergy production, promotion and use, FAO Legislative Study 95. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. ISBN 978-92-5-105870-1 FAO (2008) The state of food and agriculture 2008, biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. ISBN 978-92-5-105980-7 FAO (2010) Bioenergy and food security – the BEFS analysis for Tanzania. Environment and natural resources working paper 35, Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC) publications, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, 2010, ISSN 2071–0992 Froger E, Paz A, Vissers P (2010) Selection of a sustainability standard for pilot assessments of Jatropha producers in Mozambique. Report of project ‘Towards sustainability certification of Jatropha bio-fuels in Mozambique’ co-financed by NL Agency, Utrecht, May 2010 Government of Ghana (2009) Draft renewable energy bill. Final draft report of consultancy services for renewable energy policy and regulatory framework and renewable energy law for Ghana – Electricity Generation, Sept 2009 Government of Mozambique (2009) Resolucao n.o 22/2009, Aprova a Politica e Estsategia de Biocombustiveis, Boletim da Republica, Publicacao Oficial da Republica de Mozambique, 3.o Suplemento, 21 May 2009 Government of Senegal (2007) Biofuels in Senegal – Jatropha program 2007–2012. Ministry of Agriculture, July 2007 Government of South Africa (2003) White paper on renewable energy. Department of Minerals and Energy, Nov 2003 Government of South Africa (2007) Biofuels industrial strategy of the republic of South Africa. Department of Minerals and Energy, Dec 2007 IIAM and DNTF (2008) Zoneamento Agrario—Resultados do exercıcio de validação de resultados de terra disponıvel a nıvel local (fase 2). IIAM and DNTF, Maputo, p 16 Janssen R, Rutz D (2010) Development of sustainability criteria for biofuels – international initiatives and expertise. Report of project ‘mainstreaming sustainability in the biofuel sector in Mali’ co-financed by NL Agency, May 2010 Janssen R, Rutz D, Helm P, Woods J, Diaz-Chavez R (2009) Bioenergy for sustainable development in Africa – environmental and social aspects. In: Proceedings of the 17th European biomass conference and exhibition, 29 June–3 July 2009, Hamburg, Germany, pp 2422–2430 Kalumiana OS (2009) Bioenergy policy implementation in Zambia. Presentation at COMPETE policy conference, Lusaka, Zambia, 26–28 May 2009. Available at: http://www.competebioafrica.net/

182


Kiwele P (2009) Bioenergy policy implementation in Tanzania. Presentation at COMPETE policy conference, Lusaka, Zambia, 26–28 May 2009. Available at: http://www.compete-bioafrica.net/ Lerner A (2009) Sustainability criteria for biofuels – an alternative for Southern Africa? COMPETE Newsletter, (4):7, Apr 2009 Lerner A, Matupa O, Mothlathledi F, Stiles G, Brown R (2010) SADC biofuel state of play study – an assessment of the biofuel sector development in the Southern African Development Community Mataveia MA (2009) Biofuel development in Mozambique. COMPETE Newsletter, (4) 10, Apr 2009 Muok BO, Kirui S, Theuri D, Wakhungu JW (2008) Policies and regulations affecting biofuels development in Kenya. PISCES Policy Brief No. 1, Dec 2008. Available at www.pisces.or.ke RED (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 003/30/EC. Official J Eur Union: L 140/16–L 140/62 SADC (2005) Feasibility study for the production and use of biofuels in the SADC Region, Gaborone, Botswana, Aug 2005 Sambo AS (2008) Renewable energy options for the environment and sustainable development in Nigeria. Presentation at National Workshop on Energy Investment, Abuja, Nigeria, 4–5 June 2008 Schut M, Slingerland M, Locke A (2010) Biofuel developments in Mozambique update and analysis of policy, potential and reality. Energ Policy 38(2010):5151–5165 UEMOA (2008) Sustainable bioenergy report in UEMOA Member Countries. Oct 2008. Available at: www.unfoundation.org

Chapter 15

Biofuel Policies in Tanzania Sarah Mohamed, Gavin Fraser, and Estomih N. Sawe

Abstract Tanzania’s energy consumption is dominated by biomass, most of which is consumed by households. Apart from biomass, the country has extensive hydropower, coal and natural gas resources. The overwhelming dependence on biomass for basic cooking and heating needs by the majority in Tanzania, is a major cause of poverty and several other deleterious effects. As a consequence of the harmful effects of fossil fuels, biofuels are seen as a source of sustainable growth to help alleviate poverty in Tanzania. In this chapter, present policies and other framework conditions influencing the development of the biofuel sector in Tanzania are investigated. This includes the Tanzanian Energy Policy, Land Act, National Forest Policy, National Environment Policy, Agricultural Sector Development Policy, and the Tanzanian Transport Policy. The necessity for policies directly related to biofuel production is discussed. The Tanzanian government has established a Biofuels Task Force (BTF) in order to produce guidelines for the design of a set of appropriate policy initiatives. Due to the lack of formal biofuel policies, several external agencies have made recommendations on policies that the Tanzanian government should adopt. It is concluded that the policies existing in Tanzania are indirect and thus biofuel producers lack a reliable framework. Due to increasing biofuels, especially amongst small-scale farmers, the government must seek to provide these smallholders with incentives to grow their productions along with large-scale producers. Keywords Tanzania • Biofuel policy • Sustainability • Economic growth • Small-scale farmers

S. Mohamed • G. Fraser (*) Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa e-mail: [email protected];[email protected] E.N. Sawe TaTEDO, Mpakani A, Plot No. KJM/MPA/98, Near Institute of Social Works, Kijitonyama, PO Box 32794, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania e-mail: [email protected]


183

184

S. Mohamed et al.

15.1 Introduction Tanzania’s energy consumption is dominated by biomass (Fig. 15.1), most of which is consumed by households. The remainder is composed of petroleum products (8%) and electricity and other sources (2%). In addition to biomass, the country has considerable hydropower, coal and natural gas resources. Hydropower potential is nearly 5,000 MW, of which currently 560 MW is exploited in large plants and 4 MW in small plants. Coal reserves are estimated at 1,200 million tons, whilst limited amounts are mined and used for electricity generation in the south of the country. Natural gas reserves are estimated at 45 billion m3 exploited for electricity production and industrial use, e.g. in the cement industry (Norges Naturvernforbund 2009). Only petroleum products need to be imported. Electricity production for the national grid totalled 4,185 GWh in 2007, mostly from hydropower (60%) and natural gas (36%) (International Energy Agency 2007). Electricity is also produced from coal (3%) and diesel (1%). Small amounts of electricity are imported from Uganda and Zambia. In addition, several agro-industries operate biomass-fuelled co-generation plants to produce electricity and heat for their own processes with a total installed electrical capacity of about 35 MW. Grid connection rates are very low, i.e. only 12% of the total population and 2.5% of the rural population has access to electricity (Rural Energy Agency 2009). The overwhelming dependence on biomass for cooking and heating needs by the majority in Tanzania is a major cause of poverty and several other deleterious effects. These include deforestation and soil degradation from charcoal production and the use of fuel-wood. Charcoal production alone causes loss of forest cover at a rate of more than 100,000 ha per year with an increasing tendency (Sawe 2009b).

Fig. 15.1 Energy sources in Tanzania (Source: Sawe 2009b)

15

Biofuel Policies in Tanzania

185

In addition, desertification is occurring at an increasing rate and marginal agriculture is being affected due to limited water resources during droughts (Developing Renewables 2006).

15.2

Reasons for Biofuel Policy

Bioenergy developments are high on the agenda of many countries today in an effort to improve energy access, energy security and global greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, bioenergy offers enormous potential to boost agricultural growth and reduce poverty in developing countries like Tanzania. Biofuel developments in Tanzania could provide an important opportunity to improve agriculture by mobilizing investors and local capital to enhance energy access and improve productivity. Pressure on Tanzania’s electricity supply is increasing. This is due to growing economic activities and improving ability and willingness of the population to buy electricity appliances both in rural and urban areas. In addition, the demand from neighbouring countries Kenya, Malawi, Uganda and Zambia onto the Tanzanian national grid is growing. The growth of electricity-intensive sectors such as the mining sector is intensifying this pressure. Eighty percent of the Tanzanian population is rural, largely isolated from access to the national grid, and hence deprived of opportunities to get access to modern energy services. Only 2.5% of Tanzania’s rural population has access to grid electricity (Sawe 2009b). The energy needs in rural and urban areas are met by fuel-wood, resulting in deforestation. Wood from rural areas is used for charcoal production. The development of a sound biofuel policy would not only provide a source of energy for rural areas and reduce deforestation, but with appropriate policy incentives, it would allow its establishment on a large-scale and help Tanzania meet its increasing energy demands (African Rural Energy Enterprise Development 2010). A more general reason for the need to formulate a biofuel policy is for the country’s overall development. The Millennium Development Goals emphasize ensuring a sustainable environment and reducing poverty. Energy is an essential service whose availability and affordability determines levels of development. Tanzania faces the challenge of accelerating its economic growth. This has been the stimulus for formulating and reviewing policies and strategies aimed at reducing poverty in the context of the Development Vision 2025 that envisages sustainable socio-economic development by the year 2025. The success of all these ambitions depends on reliability, affordability and sustainability of modern energy services (Kamanga 2008). According to Dufey (2006), one of the most critical conditions for the implementation of biofuel production is a public policy that makes production competitive in the earliest stages of industry development. Dufey claims that policy tools such as tax benefits, subsidies and loan guarantees are essential in order to encourage the production and consumption of biofuels and the development of the market. Support is needed to account for its high cost compared to conventional fuels to exploit the

186

S. Mohamed et al.

many positive externalities associated with biofuel production (Dufey 2006). Currently, high costs of production discourage producers from entering biofuel production. If a mechanism exists in the form of a public policy to encourage individuals to engage in the production of biofuels, the market for biofuels would attract more producers, thereby increasing competitiveness. Although public policy is deemed vital to encourage individuals to engage in the production of biofuels, it may not be beneficial to all. Biofuel production has developed in industrialized countries due to protectionist policies defending the domestic biofuels industry from international competition. Protectionist policies have proved to be costly for developing countries that could potentially become efficient producers or exporters of biofuels. Low-income consumers pay high prices for food staples as their prices rise in world markets. This rise is largely associated with distortional policies (World Development Report 2008). Even though public policy for the inducement of domestic production of biofuels may be a pre-requisite, it may not be beneficial or efficient on a global level. The World Development Report (2008) further cautions that it may not be wise for governments of developing countries to devote a large amount of resources to the creation of incentives, displacing alternative activities with higher returns (World Development Report 2008). Thus, developing countries engaging in the production of biofuels with large support from their governments may be in danger of diverting resources away from sources of comparative advantage and not utilizing their resources in the most efficient ways. Although Dufey (2006) recommends the use of public policy to encourage the production and consumption of biofuels due to their potential benefits, it is acknowledged that governments need to assess whether the benefits outweigh the costs. On the other hand, a report by the United Nations (UN) notes that governments have an incentive to support small-scale biofuel production because this may reduce social welfare payments. The increased employment resulting from the development of the biofuels industry will mean that fewer people are unemployed seeking unemployment benefits. Thereby, governmental expenses are reduced and tax revenues from employed workers increase. In addition, through multiplier effects, money earned and spent will be an overall economic stimulus (United Nations Energy 2007).

15.3

Necessity of Biofuel Policy

Currently there is no formal biofuel policy in Tanzania. Investors are operating in a policy vacuum. As a result, the Tanzanian Biofuels Task Force (BTF) has been established to produce guidelines for the government in order to design appropriate policy initiatives (Sumbi 2009). The BTF falls under the Ministry of Energy (Janssen 2006). Other aims of the BTF include ensuring close co-operation between the different government bodies involved in the development of policies for biofuels and providing an information channel between the stakeholders, namely, the government,

15


187

industry, farmers’ associations and non-government organizations (Janssen et al. 2005). To date, the BTF has performed a SWOT analysis, prioritized strategic action, produced draft guidelines for biofuels development and devised a comprehensive action plan for biofuel development (Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Co-operatives 2009).

15.3.1

Factors Inhibiting Biofuel Production

Tanzania’s Energy Policy encourages switching from traditional fossil fuels to alternative environmentally friendly fuels. However, it does not emphasize biofuels because at the time the policy document was drawn up biofuels were not discussed as alternative source of energy (Haikam 2009). This shows that Tanzanian legislation has not yet caught up with the current needs of the population and this hinders the further development of biofuel production. Moreover, due to the weak legal institutional framework in Tanzania, contracts between smallholder farmers and large-scale biofuel producers result in the nonenforcement of standards, and often both parties do not live up to their commitments. This dissuades small-scale farmers from entering into agreements with large-scale producers for fear of being exploited, whilst large-scale producers do not believe that small-scale farmers will be able to meet their obligations (Marwa 2008). Furthermore, the National Forest Policy seeks to protect the ownership and management of forest land by communities. Investment in biofuel production can have direct impacts on forests, creating conflict between the National Forest Policy, which protects the land of those not wishing to engage in biofuel production, and other policies that indirectly encourage the production on biofuels (Haikam 2009). At present, formal policies are not inhibiting the production of biofuels, but the lack of a direct biofuel policy is an inhibiting factor. Existing policies do not impede biofuel production. However, the absence of direct policies or guidelines causes lower interest of foreign and domestic investors towards investments in expanding biofuel production.

15.3.2

Policies Promoting Biofuel Production

A concern that may seem to hinder the development of biofuel production is the Land Act. This Act promotes the optimum use of land resources, community ownership and it protects communities facing land acquisition pressures for large-scale commercial biofuel production (Haikam 2009). However, rural communities can use the land they own to develop small-scale biofuel production initiatives without the threat of having their land being taken away. Protection of ownership ensures rural communities with long-term ownership and hence, the willingness to invest their limited resources into the production of biofuel on a small-scale.

188

S. Mohamed et al.

The National Environment Policy endorses economic development but not at all costs with regard to potential environmental impacts. Consequently, this policy explicitly suggests the development of alternative energy sources with reduced environmental impacts to support growth (Haikam 2009). As Tanzanian policy advocates the development of alternative sources of energy, individuals will not be discouraged to invest in the production of biofuels. The Agricultural and Livestock Policy acknowledges the fact that agriculture includes the production of both, edible and non-edible oils, with non-edible oils regarded as potential feedstock for biofuels (Haikam 2009). This acknowledgement gives owners of land unsuitable for the farming of food crops, an incentive to continue the cultivation of crops that yield non-edible oils that can be bought by largescale biofuel producers or used by small-scale biofuel initiatives in their own communities. The Agricultural Sector Development Strategy of 2001 aims to create an environment that is conducive to the improvement of productivity and profitability of the agricultural sector (Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security 2001). The strategy states that the role of the government is to create an environment for medium and large-scale investors to make use of the abundant land resource of the country. In 2006, almost 50% of Tanzania’s land area was available for agriculture (Janssen 2006). As this strategy is not directed at food crops only, it provides an environment in which biofuel production can grow. In addition, Tanzania’s Transport Policy states that the environmental impacts of transport infrastructure and services must be taken into account (Haikam 2009). This shows that the Tanzanian government recognizes the negative effects of fossil fuels on the environment and is willing to consider alternative sources of energy. This provides an incentive to the transport sector to use biofuels, stimulating demand and encouraging individuals to engage in production. Furthermore, based on the recognition that Tanzania is a country well endowed with natural resources, which can be used to grow its agricultural industry, the Tanzanian Investment Centre (TIC) has created strong incentives to attract investment from foreign and domestic investors to work with Tanzanian farmers (Charles 2009). Incentives include (Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Co-operatives 2009): • Zero-rated duty in capital goods, farm inputs including fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides • Favourable investment allowances and deductions on agricultural machinery and tools • Deferment of VAT payment on project capital goods • Import duty exemption on raw materials for inputs for exports • Zero-rated VAT on agricultural exports and for domestically produced agricultural inputs • Indefinite carry-over of business losses against future profit for income tax • Reasonable corporate and withholding tax rates on dividends These investment incentives are attractive for large-scale farming. However, smallscale farmers find it difficult to acquire finances to obtain the necessary equipment to

15


189

begin ventures. Therefore, it is recommended that the incentives provided by the TIC should have a larger focus on facilitating the acquisition of finances by small-scale farmers and farmers’ co-operatives.

15.4

Conclusions and Recommendations

Due to the lack of a formal biofuel policy, several external and internal agencies such as GTZ, FAO, University of Dar es Salaam, and TaTEDO have made recommendations about the kind of policy that the Tanzanian government should adopt. These recommendations include (carbon-based) fuel-taxes, vehicle taxes and subsidies to stimulate demand, incentives for investment in biofuel production facilities to stimulate supply, initial protection of local manufacturers against cheaper imports in order to develop a strong national biofuels industry and the introduction of technology standards that require compatibility with specific mixtures of biofuels (Janssen et al. 2005). There is a need to support and empower small-scale farmers and local investors to produce biofuels for local and export markets. Although existing policies indirectly encourage individuals to engage in the production of biofuels, there is no formal policy framework for their development of the biofuels sector. As biofuels are becoming an important source of energy, Tanzanian legislation needs to catch up and provide the appropriate incentives to encourage their production and use. Furthermore, in the development of policies, the government must keep in mind small-scale biofuel producers. When developing policies, governments often focus on providing incentives to large-scale producers and large multinational companies, whereas small-scale farmers require special incentives. These special incentives could include funds, grants and assistance in the establishment of farmers’ associations in which small-scale farmers come together and pool their efforts to be able to compete with large-scale multinationals. As financing is important for the growth of biofuel production local financing institutions should be encouraged to support small-scale farmers. Financing is especially vital for the acquisition of equipment by rural communities to process oil crops into fuels to meet local energy needs (Sawe 2009a).

References African Rural Energy Enterprise Development (2010) The energy sector. United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.areed.org/country/tanzania/energy.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2010 Charles K (2009) Agricultural Mechanization in Tanzania. Precision Air, Oct–Dec, pp 30–31 Developing Renewables (2006) country energy information Tanzania. Renewable energy in developing countries: current situation, market potential and recommendations for a win-win-win for EU

190

S. Mohamed et al.

industry, the environment and local socio-economic development. http://www.energyrecipes.org/ reports/genericData/Africa/061129%20RECIPES%20country%20info%20Tanzania.pdf . Accessed 6 Jan 2010 Dufey A (2006) Biofuels production, trade and sustainable development: emerging issues. Report for the International Institute for Environment and Development, London Haikam 2009. What other policies say about biofuel in Tanzania. Citizen Journalism in Africa. http://www.citizenjournalismafrica.org/node/1349. Accessed 16 Sept 2009 International Energy Agency (2007) Electricity/heat data for Tanzania. http://www.iea.org/stats/ electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=TZ. Accessed 3 May 2010 Janssen R (2006) Opportunities for biofuels in Tanzania. WIP – renewable energies, Germany. http://www.gfse.at/fileadmin/dam/gfse/fse%206/PLENARY_IV/5.__WIP_GFSEPresentation__Rainer_Janssen.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2009 Janssen R, Sawe EN, Woods J, Pförtner R (2005) Liquid biofuels for transportation in Tanzania: potential and implications for sustainable agriculture and energy in the 21st century, WIP – Renewable Energies, Themba Technology, TaTEDO, Integration Umwelt und Energie GmbH, commissioned by GTZ. http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-biofuels-for-transportation-intanzania-2005.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2009 Kamanga KC (2008) The Agrofuel Industry in Tanzania: a critical enquiry into challenges and opportunities. Research report. Land Rights Research and Resources Institute (LARRRI) and Joint Oxfam Livelihood Initiative for Tanzania (JOLIT). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Marwa NW (2008) The economic potentials of liquid biofuels production: challenges and opportunities for smallholder farmers in Tanzania. http://www.irst.ac.rw/IMG/pdf/MARWA_ PRESENT-ATION.pdf. Accessed 8 Jan 2010 Norges Naturvernforbund (2009) Sustainable energy solutions in East Africa: status, experiences and policy recommendations from NGOs in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. Report 2/2009, Norges Naturvernforbund, Oslo Rural Energy Agency (2009) Rural energy agency: role and mandate. Presentation for the NORAD small hydropower development working session, 28 Oct 2009 Sawe EN (2009a) Liquid biofuels: pertinent issues, smallholder farmers and biofuels development potential in Tanzania. Tanzania Traditional Energy Development and Environment Organisation. http://www.tatedo.org/news/biofuels.htm. Accessed 16 Sept 2009 Sawe EN (2009b) Sustainable charcoal production for poverty reduction in Tanzania (some issues and options). In: Bioenergy for sustainable development in Africa Conference, Brussels Sumbi P (2009) WWF’s perspectives on biofuels and the current situation in Tanzania. World Wide Fund for Nature. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/08_wwf_tanzania_regional_ biofuel_workshop_nairobi_20_april_2009_small.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2009 Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (2001) Agricultural sector development strategy. Tanzanian policy document. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Dodoma Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security and Co-operatives (2009) Tanzania Government Perspective on Biofuels. Ecole Polytechnique Federale du Lausanne. http://cgse. epfl.ch/webdav/site/cgse/shared/Biofuels/Regional%20Outreaches%20&%20Meetings/2009/ East%20Africa/Govt%20Tanzania.pdf. Accessed 16 Sept 2009 United Nations Energy (2007) Sustainable bioenergy: a framework for decision makers. United Nations. http://esa.un.org/un-energy/pdf/susdev.Biofuels.FAO.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2009 World Development Report (2008) Biofuels: the promise and the risks. World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/Resources/2795087-1192112387976/WDR08_05_ Focus_B.pdf. Accessed 8 Mar 2009

Chapter 16

Biofuel Policy in South Africa: A Critical Analysis Thapelo Letete and Harro von Blottnitz

Abstract In 2007 the South African government released the country’s National Biofuels Industrial Strategy targeting a biofuels market penetration of 2% of liquid road transport fuels by 2013. Contrary to the international situation, the main driver for the development of a biofuels industry in South Africa is neither the economic threat of increasing oil prices nor mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, but the need to create a link between the country’s first and second economies. Specifically, the government hopes to stimulate economic development and to alleviate poverty through the promotion of farming in areas previously neglected by the apartheid system. Before the release of this strategy, commercial sugar producers and maize farmers represented the majority of the parties looking to drive the South African biofuels industry. But, 2 years after its release none of the ventures by these stakeholders have been able to take off, mainly due to the Strategy’s restrictions on the type and source of feedstock as well as on the type of farmers whose participation in the industry would be subsidised. This chapter presents a critical scientific-based analysis of the implications and results of South Africa’s National Biofuels Industrial Strategy. Firstly, an update is presented on the state of the biofuels industry in the country, highlighting the current production statistics and the major investment activities, and how these were affected by the release of the Strategy. Then the ambiguities in the Strategy are outlined and critically analysed with reference to

T. Letete (*) Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town, P. Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] H. von Blottnitz Chemical Engineering Department, University of Cape Town, P. Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa e-mail: [email protected]


191

192

T. Letete and H. von Blottnitz

the current state of the biofuels industry in the country. The chapter concludes with lessons leant from the South African experience by those African countries which are yet to develop their respective biofuel policies. Keywords Industrial biofuels strategy • Underutilised land • Former homelands • Bioethanol • Biodiesel • Emerging black farmers

16.1

Introduction

In 2007 the South African government released the National Biofuels Industrial Strategy proposing a biofuels market penetration target of 2% of national liquid fuel supply by 2013. Before the release of the Strategy, commercial sugar producers and maize farmers represented the majority of the parties looking to drive the South African biofuels industry. However, 2 years after the release of the Strategy none of the ventures that were planned by these stakeholders have been able to take off. This chapter presents a critical analysis of the key issues of South Africa’s Biofuels Industrial Strategy and a discussion on how these could have contributed to the relatively slow development of the biofuels industry in the country. First a summary of the Strategy is given, followed by a critical analysis of specific issues of the strategy in connection with the current status of biofuel production in the country.

16.2

Summary of the Strategy

The National Industrial Biofuels Strategy initially aims at a short-term focus (5 year pilot) to achieve a 2% penetration of biofuels in the national liquid fuel supply, or 400 million litres per year to be based on local agricultural and manufacturing production (DME 2007). This target represents about 30% of the national renewable energy target for 2013, set in the White Paper on Renewable Energy (DME 2003). Contrary to the international situation, the main driver for the development of a biofuels industry in South Africa is neither the economic threat of erratically increasing oil prices nor a mitigation agenda for anthropogenic climate change, but the need to create a link between the country’s 1st and 2nd economies.1 Specifically, the government hopes to stimulate economic development and to alleviate poverty through the promotion of farming in areas that were previously neglected by the

1 South Africa’s 1st and 2nd economies: the 1st is integrated with the global economy through modern industrialisation and produces the bulk of the country’s wealth, whilst the 2nd is isolated from the first and global economies and is characterised by poverty, underdevelopment and marginalisation resulting from years of apartheid rule.

16

Biofuel Policy in South Africa: A Critical Analysis

193

apartheid system, and in areas of the country that did not have market access for their produce, most of which are in the former homeland areas2 (DME 2007). The Strategy targets new and additional land, and estimates that about 14% of arable land in South Africa, mainly in the former homelands, is currently underutilised and that only about 1.4% of arable land will be required to achieve the 2% target. The government will support the development of the under-utilised land to a level that will compete commercially, and only agricultural products grown in the previous homelands by historically disadvantaged farmers will qualify for support (DME 2007). The Strategy proposes that support be done through existing agricultural support programmes as well as through support of investments made by the project in agricultural development. These are support programmes of the Department of Agriculture, including programmes for small-scale and emerging farmers. According to the Strategy, these programmes can be targeted to support farmers in crop selection, hedging, agricultural methods, logistics, infrastructure, research and development, and in negotiating contracts with biofuels manufacturers. The government will also ensure the training and capacity building of previously disadvantaged communities and emerging entrepreneurs to maximise transformation and the benefits in the biofuels industry (DME 2007). The Strategy further proposes a producer support mechanism to be used to balance the difference in fuel tax support to bioethanol and biodiesel by setting a fixed margin price. It is proposed that bioethanol receives a 100% petrol tax exemption, which amounts to about R 1.21 per litre,3 whereas biodiesel should receive a 50% diesel fuel levy exemption, effectively amounting to R 0.53 per litre (based on 2007 prices) (DME 2007). The Strategy recommends that the 2% target be achieved through B2 or 2% blending level for biodiesel and an E8 or 8% blending level for bioethanol. Mandatory blending is not recommended for this incubation phase (DME 2007). For food security reasons, the Strategy proposes that for the production of bioethanol, maize should be excluded in the initial phases of the strategy implementation. It is envisaged that the use of maize will only be considered “once certainty on the ability of the currently under-utilised land to produce has been ascertained and the necessary measures are in place to guard against extreme food inflation” (DME 2007).

16.3

Analysis of Key Points

The 2009 report of the South African Biofuels Chair admits that progress, especially investment, in the development of the country’s biofuels industry has been very modest (Chair of Energy Research 2009). According to the report, the

2 Homeland areas (homelands) were semi-autonomous areas that were set aside for black South Africans under the apartheid regime, and only became integrated fully with the rest of South Africa in 1994. 3 Average 2010 Rand to 1US$ exchange rate = 7.33 (X-rates 2010).

194


only real activities to date have been the approval of 3.2 billion Rands (437 M US$) by South Africa’s Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and Energy Development Corporation (EDC) for two bioethanol plants that should collectively produce about 190 ML per year of bioethanol from sugarcane and sugarbeet, and the planned erection of a 1.1 Mt per year soybean crushing facility that will produce and distribute about 228 ML biodiesel by Rainbow Nation Renewable Fuels Ltd. Indeed no commercial biofuel plants have been established in the country. Only biodiesel is currently being produced for the transport market, and this is from the more than 200 small-scale initiatives that use recycled vegetable oil, most of which were established long before the Strategy was released in 2007. Looking back at the historical biofuel developments in the country, it is clear that the approval of funding for the two planned bioethanol plants and the soybean crushing facility is, in no way, assurance that commercial biofuel production will actually happen. There have been plans for commercial biofuel plants of this magnitude in South Africa before, but none of them actually took off. The question that must be asked is: Why is the establishment of the agriculture-based biofuel industry envisaged by the Biofuels Industrial Strategy of South Africa not taking off? The Central Energy Fund (CEF) Energy Development Corporation project manager, Sibusiso Ngubane, who was closely involved with the investigations into finding the right locations for the proposed biofuel plants, points to the exclusion of maize as feedstock for bioethanol production, whilst South Africa’s Biofuels Chair seems to believe that it is because of the absence of obligatory nationwide blending (Chair of Energy Research 2009; IPS News 2008). In the following sections key points of the Strategy are discussed that have the potential to render the country’s biofuels industry inactive, or at least slow down its development.

16.3.1

Blending

There are ambiguities in the Strategy on how a B2 blending level for biodiesel and an E8 blending level for bioethanol will achieve the targeted 2% liquid fuel penetration or 400 million litres. In 2007, the national gasoline consumption in South Africa was 11,558 million litres, whilst diesel consumption was 9,757 million litres (SAPIA 2009). In volumetric terms, 2% of the total liquid fuel consumption in 2007 was therefore 426 million litres, which is well within the 400 million litre target. A B2 blending level requires about 195 million litres of biodiesel; whilst an E8 blending level requires 925 million litres of bioethanol. A combination of B2 and E8 blends amount to 1,120 million litres of biofuels or a national liquid fuel penetration of 5.3% on volume basis or 3.4% on energy basis, both of which are much higher than the proposed 2%. The absence of mandatory national blending levels implies that only environmentally conscious individuals and institutions will be willing to use biofuels in their vehicles. This means that the actual market for biofuels in the country is therefore very limited and fragile.

16


195

As regards blending of ethanol into gasoline, this appears to be heavily intertwined with a slowly evolving policy discussion on the issue of cleaner fuels. The government is caught between conflicting interests of the motor manufacturers (who want to deploy engine technologies that rely on the advanced Euro standards), and of the fuel’s industry (who would have to invest heavily into modernising their refineries). Ethanol as oxygenate is important to future investment choices of the refineries. However, until these are formally requested by government with clear regulatory obligations to the fuels industry, any local investment into fuel bioethanol would remain in the risk of not securing a local market. This issue exposes a key shortfall of a supply-side driven policy intervention. All of these issues regarding blending levels proposed by the Strategy can potentially contribute to the inactivity of the biofuels industry in the country, with respect to investment. Without clear understanding of major policy points and without a secure and sizeable market, investors will tend to be overly cautious, if not totally reluctant, to engage in any business venture.

16.3.2

Participation: Farmers and Crops

Long before the release of the Strategy, commercial maize farmers were amongst the first groups of stakeholders to lobby for bioethanol production in the country. The most predominant early venture in this respect was that of Ethanol Africa, a corporation between maize farmers, technologists and specialists in the clean technology market. The main focus of Ethanol Africa was to unlock the value contained in maize through the conversion of maize to ethanol. In 2005 the company released its 8 year plan to build eight grain processing bioethanol plants from 2005 to 2012 around the central and north-eastern part of the country, starting with Bothaville in the heart of South Africa’s maize triangle (South Africa Info 2009). By early 2007 the company had secured funding in the tune of 110 million US$ for the facility in Bothaville and only awaiting the release of the final Biofuel Strategy which, to their disappointment, had not only excluded the use of their targeted feedstock, but had excluded the whole farming area of Bothaville as well as the majority of their farmer shareholders who did not come from previously disadvantaged communities (Business Report 2007). Needless to say, the venture could not take off. The Strategy’s requirement of only land that is in the former homelands implies that there cannot be any agricultural participation in this industry in two of the country’s nine provinces; the Northern Cape and the Western Cape. In the Free State province, in which Bothaville is located, only the former homeland of Qwaqwa and part of the former Bophuthatswana homeland areas can participate according to the strategy. During a study tour in the former homeland of Qwaqwa in the Free State, Letete (2009) discovered furthermore that not only do most of the black emerging farmers in these previously disadvantaged areas know nothing about biofuels, but they are also usually very sceptical of such new ventures and generally not willing to engage in crops that they are not familiar with.

196


All in all, the combination of the Strategy’s requirements of participation in the agricultural sector by only previously disadvantaged farmers and the exclusion of maize as a feedstock has undoubtedly slowed down the establishment of an agriculturebased biofuels industry in South Africa.

16.3.3

Arable Land to be used

The Strategy also has ambiguities regarding the type of land that is targeted for biofuels production. The Strategy talks about “new and additional” and “currently under-utilised” land which is to be found in the former homelands, but there is no attempt anywhere in the Strategy to specify which land is being referred to. In an attempt to understand the nature of land referred to in the Strategy, Letete investigated the agricultural area of Qwaqwa and discovered that there are three types of land in this area that could be classified as currently “under-utilised” (Letete 2009): • Land owned by emerging black farmers: Since the late 1990s, the South African government has been awarding agricultural land to emerging black farmers, through various schemes, as a means of land reform. Because of lack of financial, management and, in some cases, technical skills, most of these farmers have been struggling to operate the farms effectively, sometimes even leading to total abandonment of the farms. • Communal land: This is generally composed of a number of large pieces of land in the rural areas that are used by the whole community for agricultural purposes. All farming carried out in this land is purely subsistence in nature. • State land: In the former homelands there are usually areas of state-owned land that are of agricultural quality which were meant to be demarcated for agricultural purposes, but were never demarcated under the apartheid regime. This type of land is usually left unused, illegally used by the community for grazing purposes or used for cultural activities. The use of the first two types of land above for biofuel production is bound to conflict with the food industry. Whilst the little produce that the emerging farmers are able to achieve at the moment is currently being sent to regional silos that feed into the national food industry, the land used for communal subsistence farming is vital for survival in these communities and in many cases the community cannot afford to use it for anything else. The formal demarcation of state-owned land, on the other hand, is usually a lengthy process wherein decisions rest with the highest national department authorities. It is therefore unclear to many stakeholders which land is referred to by the Strategy as new, additional and currently underutilised, and this can potentially slow down the involvement of many interested parties in the biofuels industry.

16


16.3.4

197

Government Support

The extent of government support for biofuel production is also an issue in the Strategy. Three recent studies, by the Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy (BFAP) (2007), Nolte (2007), and Letete (2009), show that the economic viability of biofuels from locally grown energy crops may not be favourable. Whilst the studies show that the economic incentives proposed by the Strategy for bioethanol production are enough to make sugarcane ethanol economically viable, they clearly show that the proposed biodiesel production incentives are definitely insufficient to make agriculture-based biodiesel ventures viable. Working with 2008 commodity and energy prices, Letete (2009) has shown that the proposed biofuel tax support leads to losses for the biofuel producer of R 3.70, R 3.13 and R 0.36 per litre of soybean biodiesel, sunflower biodiesel and canola biodiesel, respectively. This is mostly due to the high prices of virgin vegetable oil in the country, which can be as high as three times the current retail price of diesel, like in the case of soybean. This is one of the major reasons why the production of biodiesel in the country has to date been primarily from recycled vegetable oil. Furthermore, agricultural land owned by previously disadvantaged farmers in South Africa is mostly land acquired through the national Land Reform programme, and since the inception of the programme in the 1990s there have been support programmes in place to assist beneficiaries – emerging black farmers – to operate the farms sustainably, but these programmes have to date been very unsuccessful. From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, 114 black emerging farmers in the eastern Free State were awarded some 96,000 ha of land under the guidance of the Agricultural Development Agency of Qwaqwa (Agriqwa) (Business Trust and DPLG 2007). The Agriqwa scheme also included test farms which acted as support centres for these black farmers in terms of technical advice, training, planning and funding. In 1995, however, this scheme was terminated by the government, leaving the beneficiaries without any support. In 2008 more than half of these farmers were burdened with debt to the extent that some could no longer operate the farms (Letete 2009). The Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP) and the Micro Agricultural Financial Industrial Scheme of South Africa (MAFISA) are the two existing support programmes that have been established to support agricultural land reform. CASP was set-up as an initiative of the Department of Agriculture in 2004 to provide post-settlement support to beneficiaries of the land reform and other producers who have acquired land through private means, whilst MAFISA is a pilot initiative aimed at providing funding for on-lending to target markets in the quest to address the financial service needs of entrepreneurs in the second economy and to strengthen the developmental agricultural micro-finance system for their benefit. At a parliamentary Monitoring Group briefing by the Department of Agriculture in 2008 regarding these two programmes, it emerged that both programmes were dismally failing to adequately support emerging farmers (Parliamentary Monitoring Group 2008).

198


If government agricultural support for emerging farmers has never been successful since the inception of the land reform programme, there is no reason for farmers to believe that the support programmes will be effective for the establishment of the biofuel industry. In summary, the proposed financial support for biofuel producers is insufficient, especially for biodiesel, and it is uncertain how real the agricultural support will actually be.

16.4

Conclusion

This experience of South Africa offers many lessons to other African countries that are yet to develop or are in the process of developing appropriate biofuel policies. These lessons can be summarised as follows: • There should be a thorough analysis of the required support from government, both in terms of value and quality, to ensure that support is well-suited for the establishment of the biofuel industry in the country. This analysis should also include a transparent assessment of government capacity to actually deliver on such promises. • There should be a detailed consultation process with targeted stakeholders in developing biofuel policies, and this should be accompanied by proper information dissemination and awareness campaigns, especially for farmers who are often isolated from cities and information technology, and have poor education backgrounds. • Key terms of the policy should be clearly defined and main points clearly laid out, especially for lay farmers and investors for whom clarity is absolutely necessary if they are to engage in such ventures. • The implications of voluntary blending versus mandatory blending should be clearly analysed, especially with respect to quality control issues and market creation for the biofuels. • It is finally also vital to the success of the biofuel industry that any outstanding issues and conflicts between key players and stakeholders in the biofuel industry are addressed before the policy is put in place.

References BFAP (2007) Modelling the impacts of macroeconomic variables on the South African biofuel industry. Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa, Pretoria Business Report (2007) Ethanol Africa gets $110 m injection for first plant. 2007 [cited 2009 10/12/2009]. Available from: http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=&fArticleId=37 33546 Business Trust and DPLG (2007) Nodal economic profiling project – Maluti-a-phofung, Free State Chair of Energy Research (2009) Biofuels, South Africa biofuels: IEA Taskgroup 39 progress report. In: van Zyl E, Prior B (eds) University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa

16


199

DME (2003) White paper on renewable energy, Pretoria, South Africa DME (2007) Biofuels industrial strategy of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa IPS News (2009) Maize farmers lobby to supply biofuel industry. ENERGY-SOUTH AFRICA. 2008 [cited 2009 07/11/2009]. Available from: http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=40945 Letete TCM (2009) Multiobjective modelling of biofuel supply systems. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, p 168 Nolte M (2007) Commercial biodiesel production in South Africa: a preliminary economic feasibility study. Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch Parliamentary Monitoring Group (2008) Comprehensive agriculture support & Mafisa Funding Programmes: Agriculture Department briefings. [cited 2010 12/02/2010]. Available from: http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20080220-comprehensive-agriculture-support-mafisa-fundingprogrammes-agriculture-department-b SAPIA (2009) Product demand: sales of major petroleum products in South Africa 2007. [cited 2009 12/06/2009]. Available from: http://www.sapia.co.za/stats/demand.htm South Africa. Info (2006) Ethanol Africa forges ahead. [cited 2009]. Available from: http://www. southafrica.info/about/sustainable/ethanol-100506.htm X-rates (2010) South African Rands to 1 USD – Historical, 2010. http://www.x-rates.com/d/ZAR/ USD/hist2010.html

Chapter 17

Promoting Biofuels in West Africa: An Engine for Development Mamadou Dianka

Abstract This chapter shows how biofuels can contribute to improve energy supply in West African countries and to alleviate poverty by creating jobs for young people who are presently very committed to emigrate to Europe. In the frame of the fight against deforestation, reduction of energy dependency, poverty and greenhouse gas emissions, the UEMOA Commission intends to stimulate the development of the biofuels sector for household energy, transportation and electricity generation with special focus on unlocking the potential of ethanol, gelfuel and biodiesel. The first phase of the UEMOA project involved the execution of a regional study on biofuels production potential and markets. This study enabled to determine and quantify market opportunities for the set-up of a supply system and the assessment of the technological, economic and financial feasibility of ethanol/gelfuel production units in the UEMOA region. In the Member States with little potential to produce ethanol (from sugarcane, cashew tree and cassava), the possibility of producing biodiesel from jatropha was evaluated. This chapter demonstrates that the region has a large potential to become a leading producer of many types of biofuels given the availability of raw materials, climate conditions, land availability and production costs. The economical and political stability of the Union favour the development of a common biofuels market that can become a substantial exporter of biofuels to the EU. The role of bioenergy in West African countries can be considerable. The application of modern bioenergy technologies can contribute to efficient energy use, reduction of dependency on imported fossil fuels, increased access to electricity, job creation and development of business opportunities between Africa and Europe. Keywords West Africa • Exodus • Rural development • Youth • UEMOA • Ethanol

M. Dianka (*) Union Monétaire et Economique Ouest Africaine (UEMOA), BP 543, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso e-mail: [email protected]


201

202

17.1

M. Dianka

Introduction

Since several years, West African countries, particularly the UEMOA countries, face severe challenges such as land degradation, desertification, lack of access to energy and climate change. The current energy and agricultural sector has highlighted the daunting challenges of the UEMOA region. The strong dependence of the region on oil imports absorbs most export income, whilst rising commodity prices aggravate the already fragile food security. Access to renewable energy in UEMOA countries is limited, the rural electrification rate remains below 5%. Despite the rapid urbanisation of UEMOA countries, people living in urban areas use little modern fuels. Firewood accounts for more than 70% of final energy consumption in the region, which puts pressure on the environment with a negative impact on the health of the population. The ability of small farmers to improve their living conditions is further compromised by high world prices for energy and grain over the past 2 years. With a population of more than 90 million inhabitants and an area of three million square kilometres, more than 200,000 young people annually migrate to the capitals in search of employment. In order to face these challenges, various measures will be taken at different levels to combat rural poverty and improve food and energy security. Biofuels could thereby not only increase agricultural production and industrial productivity, but also diversify and develop the rural economy through the creation of new products and new markets. Many opportunities exist for West African countries to meet their needs for social, economic and ecological services by integrating bioenergy and sustainable energy into their energy sectors. The UEMOA countries have the potential to grow both food and biofuel crops, as well as develop non-food sources of biomass for energy production.

17.2

The Availability of Suitable Raw Material

From a regional point of view, the agricultural production potential for the ethanol sector mainly comprises (1) the humid areas of Ivory Cost, Guinee Bissau, Benin and Togo where rain fed sugarcane, cassava and cashew tree are cultivated and (2) the geographical zones around the Niger, Senegal and Gambia rivers with intensive irrigation of sugarcane and rain fed oils seeds such as cotton, jatropha and castor. Co-operation with the following sub-regional organisations charged with the development of Sahel zones is important for the implementation of biofuel projects: • OMVS (which includes Senegal, Mali, Mauritania and Guinea Conakry): the establishment of more than 600,000 ha for biofuels production is possible. • OMVG (which includes Senegal, Gambia, Guinea Conakry and Guinea-Bissau): 50,000 ha could be exploited. • The Niger River Office in Mali: a minimum of 800,000 ha is available.

17

Promoting Biofuels in West Africa: An Engine for Development

203

The preliminary options for each country are the following: Benin – the most suitable raw material for the production of ethanol gelfuel is cassava. With an average production of 2.8 million tons of cassava per year, Benin could produce 20,000 m3 of ethanol by using just 5% of its annual harvests (no competition with food supply needs). Burkina Faso – new cultivation of sugarcane seems to be the most accessible raw material for the production of ethanol at present. If the 5,000 ha owned by SOSUCO are used for this purpose, an ethanol production potential of 20,000 m3 per year can be estimated. The energy required for the conversion of sugarcane juice to ethanol could be provided by bagasse. Another potential source is sweet sorghum if the plantation envisaged in the Sourou Valley becomes a reality. Furthermore, SN CITEC (Dagris Group) plans to build a factory in the short-term with a production capacity of 10,000 tons per year based on cotton seeds. Ivory Coast – the country has a large potential (19,000 m3/year) to produce ethanol as a result of extensive availability of cheap molasses, enabling the profitable production of ethanol and gelfuel. Production costs are estimated at 121, 165 and 122 FCFA/l for ethanol, gelfuel and biofuel, respectively (based on the assumed conversion rate of 1 Euro equal to 655 FCFA). Guinea Bissau – the cashew tree apple currently seems to be the most suitable raw material for the production of ethanol. The annual production is estimated at 400– 600 thousand tons, of which only 30% are used for the production of juice, wine and spirits. If the remaining 70% could be used to produce ethanol, the ethanol production potential would be approximately 8,400–12,600 m3/year. Mali – the real production potential depends mainly on the new sugar mill in Markala. The envisaged output of 170,000 tons of sugar per year will result in an availability of 61,000 tons of molasses per year, which can be converted into 18,000 m3 of ethanol. Niger – the ethanol production potential is very low in Niger due to the absence of sugarcane production and low precipitation. However, there is particular interest to produce biodiesel from jatropha oil. Initial calculations based on cost estimates indicate that biodiesel could compete with (fossil) diesel. Senegal – the ethanol production potential in Senegal is considerable. The Senegalese Sugar Company (CSS) produces roughly 35,000 tons of molasses with a high sugar content per year, which they plan to convert into 2,500 m3 of industrial ethanol (96%) and 10,000 tons (12,500 m3) of anhydrous ethanol for use as biofuel. Furthermore, several biofuel project promoters were identified including 30,000 ha of sugarcane and 20,000 ha of jatropha. Togo – in spite of the presence of a small sugar industry, the immediate potential for the production of ethanol is low unless new sugarcane plantations are developed to replace industrial pineapple plantations. However, like in Niger, the private sector has particular interest to produce jatropha oil as a feedstock for biodiesel. Initial

204

M. Dianka

calculations based on cost estimates of the various production factors indicate that biodiesel could compete (5% lower prices) with fossil diesel, if competitive production of jatropha seeds can be ensured.

17.3

Feasibility of Ethanol Production

Regarding the feasibility of ethanol as household fuel, Table 17.1 shows the calculated price levels per MJ. The figures in Table 17.1 indicate that under the current market conditions household fuels based on ethanol cannot compete with butane. The price levels of wood and charcoal, on an energy base, are definitely lower than those of butane, (not included in the overview). Gelfuel production costs are generally 20–30% higher than those of ethanol. However, in Senegal and in Ivory Coast ethanol could compete with butane gas if subsidies on butane are eliminated or if equivalent subsidies are introduced for ethanol. In addition, in all studied countries, the production of anhydrous ethanol (see Table 17.2) for use as motor fuel is advantageous. In fact, according to the Table 17.1 Prices per MJ of ethanol and household fuels

Country Benin Burkina Faso Ivory Coast Guinea-Bissau

Ethanol (FCFA/MJ) 17.8 17.7 9.1 25.2

Real price of butane (FCFA/MJ) (%)a 8.7 103 6.3 183 5.5 67 11.7 117

Non-subsidised price of butane (FCFA/MJ) (%)a 13.0 37 12.7 39 13.0 −30 11.7 117

Raw material Cassava Sugarcane Molasses Cashew tree apples Mali Molasses 14.4 7.0 106 12.0 Senegal Molasses 11.7 6.0 94 12.6 a Price gap. The percentage shows how much more expensive (or cheaper) ethanol is

20 −7

Table 17.2 Price per MJ of anhydrous ethanol, biodiesel and fossil fuels Price Gasoline price Country Raw material Product (FCFA/MJ) (FCFA/MJ) (%)a Benin Cassava Anhydrous ethanol 15.0 13.6 11 Burkina Faso Sugarcane Anhydrous ethanol 15.1 18.2 −17 Ivory Coast Molasses Anhydrous ethanol 9.3 18.6 −50 Guinea-Bissau Cashew tree Anhydrous ethanol 22.6 22.2 2 apples Mali Molasses Anhydrous ethanol 12.2 18.6 −34 −11 Niger Jatropha Biodiesel 15.2b Senegal Molasses Anhydrous ethanol 10.2 19.5 −48 Togo Jatropha Biodiesel 14.1b −5 a Price gap. The percentage shows how much more expensive (or cheaper) ethanol (or biodiesel) is b Diesel

17


205

results of the financial analyses, the value of ethanol as household fuel is 36–70% below the value of ethanol as transport biofuel. With the exception of Benin and Guinea-Bissau the local production of anhydrous ethanol can compete with gasoline. Feasibility in Benin suffers from illegal imports of hydrocarbons from Nigeria whilst production costs in Guinea-Bissau are high due to high raw material costs and low capacity utilisation as a result of the limited seasonal availability of cashew apples. In these countries, modest support measures (for example tax exemptions) could render the production of anhydrous ethanol viable. On the other hand, the production of anhydrous ethanol as fuel substitute for imported hydrocarbons is favourable due to cost savings and should be stimulated in Ivory Coast (−50%), Senegal (−48%), Mali (−34%) and, Burkina Faso (−17%). These countries could save on the import of hydrocarbons by developing local resources. Regarding the production of biodiesel in Niger and Togo, preliminary calculations indicate that this fuel can compete with (fossil) diesel. Biodiesel production costs are 5–11% less than those of diesel. However, these costs are highly sensitive to the price of jatropha seeds. In conclusion, ethanol-based household fuels will only be able to compete with butane gas if policies with market introduction incentives are put in place in each country. The use of ethanol as transport fuel will be much more profitable. Table 17.3 summarises opportunities that are considered a “programme d’urgence” for shortterm implementation in several UEMOA countries.

Table 17.3 Potential projects in the UEMOA countries Country Type project/potential Scale of units Investment FCFA 337 Mio 1,000 – Benin 20,000 m3/year ethanol based (small cut) 10,000 m3/ year on cassava FCFA 2.6 Mld (large cut)

Remarks Biofuel is 11% more expensive than gasoline

Burkina Faso

20,000 m3/year ethanol based on sugarcane

20,000 m3/year

FCFA 5.3 Mld

Biofuel is 17% less expensive than gasoline

Ivory Coast

19,000 m3/year ethanol based on molasses

10,000, 5,000 et 4,000 m3/ year

FCFA 2.1 Mld FCFA 1.2 Mld FCFA 966 Mio


GuineaBissau

~10,000 m3/year ethanol based on cashew tree apples

1,000 m3/year

FCFA 652 Mio

Biofuel is 2% more expensive than gasoline

Mali

18,000 m3/year ethanol based on molasses

18,000 m3/year

FCFA 4.8 Mld


Niger

Biodiesel based on jatropha

10,000 m3/year

FCFA 500 Mio (factory) FCFA 3.5 Mld (plantation)

Biodiesel is 11% less expensive than diesel (continued)

206

M. Dianka

Table 17.3 (continued) Country Type project/potential 3

Scale of units 3

Investment

Remarks

Senegal

15 000 m /year ethanol based on molasses

15,000 m /year

FCFA 3.2 Mld


Togo

Biodiesel based on jatropha

10,000 m3/year

FCFA 500 Mio (factory) FCFA 3.5 Mld (plantation)

Biodiesel is 5% less expensive than diesel

Total General

Ethanol (93 000 m3/ year) et biodiesel (20 000 m3/year)

Ethanol: 1,000 – 20,000 m3/ year; Biodiesel: 10,000 m3/a

Ethanol: FCFA 23.2 Mld (EUR 35.4 mio) Biodiesel: FCFA 8.0 Mld (EUR 12.2 Mio)

Substitution of 57,100 m3 of gasoline and 19,000 m3 of gasoil. Forex savings FCFA 20.6 Mld (EUR 31.4 mio)

Mld Milliard, bl Billion, Mio million

17.4

Recommendations

The principal recommendation is to continue the development of a biofuel sector in the UEMOA region. The potential to produce anhydrous ethanol and/or biodiesel from local feedstock is promising in all Member States. However, a strong will to reform the hydrocarbons sector and to introduce incentives with the aim to enable investments is necessary. Specific recommendations for the steps to be followed are: • Continuation of the dialogue on identified projects between biofuel stakeholders and decision makers. Attention of public authorities and financial institutions should be drawn to the need to support the sector with financial and institutional incentives. • Adoption of Community directives to develop the market. The adoption of such directives would encourage Member States to take appropriate legal and fiscal measures to promote the production and local consumption of biofuels. • Implementation of a support programme to promote awareness, to assist the private sector to carry out technical and financial feasibility studies and to prepare investment dossiers, to facilitate technology transfers and to promote RTD of local specialised institutes. • Implementation of agro-energy policies aimed at the long-term development of the large potential to produce ethanol and biodiesel. This policy will also have to settle the land question in order to facilitate private investment. The European Union and other donors could provide support to tackle energy, agriculture and job creation issues. • Establishment of bioenergy sector development funds, intended to stimulate a favourable investment climate, and to provide direct finance to the private sector. UEMOA could associate with sub-regional financial institutions.

17


17.5

207

Conclusion

It is obvious that West Africa, with a relatively young population and large potential of agricultural raw materials and land, has important assets to ensure food and energy security through biofuels. In addition to these advantages, the sector is a generator of jobs that can help to reduce the rural exodus and immigration to Europe. In this context, strong policies are needed acknowledging the role of biofuels as an engine for developing social inclusion for rural youth. Thereby, biofuels could contribute to stopping immigration and addressing the challenges of energy independence, food security and climate change in West Africa.

References Dianka M (1995) Les problèmes des énergies domestiques en zone sahélienne et les différentes stratégies. IEPF/LEF, Dakar, Senegal Dianka M (2001a) Challenges in meeting the biomass energy needs in West Africa. PNUD/IEPF, Dakar, Senegal Dianka M (2001b) L’approvisionnement en énergie traditionnelle et impact dans les villes africaines. Colloque francophone de Beyrouth, Liban Dianka M (2002) Initiative de politique ouest africaine dans le secteur des Energies traditionnelles pour un environnement durable – Esquisse d’un plan d’actions régional biomasse-énergie. RPTES Banque Mondiale, Dakar, Senegal Dianka M (2003) Sustainable and participatory energy management project in Senegal: moving towards alleviating environmental problems and poverty, Dakar, Senegal Dianka M (2007) Défis et opportunités des bioénergies en Afrique subsaharienne Dianka M (2008) Défis et opportunités des énergies renouvelables en Afrique subsaharienne Conférence de l’ONUDI Dakar Sénégal Dianka M, Ouedraogo (2006) Vision et stratégie régionale de valorisation énergétique de la biomasse EPM BTG (2007) Etude sur le développement de la filière Ethanol/Gelfuel comme Energie de cuisson dans l’espace « UEMOA » UEMOA (2006) LIVRE BLANC UEMOA-CEDEAO: Pour une politique régionale axée sur l”accés aux services énergétiques UN Foundation Hub Rural October (2008) Sustainable bioenergy development in UEMOA Member Countries, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

Chapter 18

Strategies for a Sustainable Pan-African Biofuels Policy Charles B.L. Jumbe and Michael Madjera

Abstract Biomass is common in people’s daily lives and would not require any special policy if it would not have received a new dimension in the recent past: the production of CO2 neutral energy and in particular biofuels. Triggered by the highly industrialized countries especially in Europe, this has developed fast and like any development, has both positive and negative effects. In particular, the production of biofuels from biomass has become part of the international process of combating CO2 emissions especially in highly industrialized countries, but also in view of the volatility of fossil fuel supplies and the dwindling fuel reserves. Today, biofuels remain a key part of the global energy solution and Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) represents a fascinating marketplace of untapped opportunities amid unique challenges. Due to the cost, land, and climate restrictions of producing biofuels in Europe and America and the current challenges Asian production is facing, many investors are turning to Africa for growing energy crops for biofuels production. The interest in biofuels production in SSA countries is gaining momentum such that the production of energy crops will become an integral part of the energy sector development for the future. Nevertheless, such a process will require long-term thinking and far-sightedness since bioenergy will change its position within the energy mix. The future energy mix will be most probably dominated by solar energy and biomass will mainly form the basis for sustainable chemical production processes. The growing international and domestic demand for biofuels will necessitate that SSA countries develop a Pan-African biofuels policy to address possible diverging or even

C.B.L. Jumbe (*) Centre for Agricultural Research & Development, Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi e-mail: [email protected] M. Madjera Evangelical Church in Middle Germany, P.O. Box 1424, 39004 Magdeburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected]


209

210

C.B.L. Jumbe and M. Madjera

conflicting international and SSA interests and to adopt the same policy or similar stipulations of fundamental principles for biofuels in the SSA region. This will also help to counter the possibility that SSA countries out-compete against each other or that SSA producers benefit little from private investments in the sector. This chapter discusses critical issues surrounding biofuels development and proposes the way forwards for the development of a Pan-African biofuels policy to ensure that biofuels are produced in a sustainable manner and that the negative effects of biofuels development on environment, economy and society do not outweigh the expected beneficial outcomes of energy security and poverty alleviation in Africa. Keywords Biofuels • Energy crops • Biomass • Poverty alleviation • Energy security • Biofuels policies • Food production • Biodiversity • SADC • Sub-Saharan Africa

18.1

Introduction

Biomass is the main source of primary energy in Sub-Saharan Africa. In some countries, wood-fuels (firewood and charcoal) account for more than 90% of the total energy consumption. Apart from meeting the energy needs of the rural population, tens of thousands of people derive their livelihood from direct and indirect involvement in biomass production and marketing. Biomass also contributes millions of dollars to local economies in the form of revenues, taxes, levies and incomes. However, compared to other sectors, the biomass sector is considered as “traditional” such that it is seldom given high priority in energy policies and poverty alleviation strategies. Whilst most countries have developed policies and strategies in the power and petroleum sectors, there are few comparable strategies for the traditional use of biomass in the energy sector. This has implications for the biomass sector development. Although Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) with its comparatively low energy demand has a limited interest in the production of biomass for energy or fuel production for own consumption, it has, compared to the limited availability of arable land in highly industrialized countries and in particular in Europe, ample arable land with potential for biomass production. This, combined with lower production costs in SSA, has resulted in a growing international interest for investments into the production of energy crops in SSA countries. Considering that the development of this sector unfolds both positive and negative effects, there is need for developing a comprehensive policy to regulate the sector including appropriate mechanisms to harness the positive outcomes whilst mitigating the negative effects. Specifically, such a policy is needed to address the negative side effects such as an imbalanced development of the national economy, an imbalanced use of land to the disadvantage of food crop production, and the destruction of nature. This requires a clear definition of the targets which in turn requires a thorough assessment and analysis of the relevant factors. As such, whilst countries may implement a country-specific policy to regulate the sector, there is need for a trans-regional or a Pan-African policy that will lay out

18

Strategies for a Sustainable Pan-African Biofuels Policy

211

the framework for the production and trade in biofuels. This is required considering that SSA countries strive to improve the living conditions of the poorest sectors, and their economies. For most SSA countries, the production of energy crops and biomass should result in the improvement of the welfare of the people and should also have a stimulating effect on the development of national economies. However, any such positive achievements must avoid negative effects to the detriment of some sectors of the population. Last but not least, the development of a trans-regional or Pan-African policy would be important to avoid that SSA countries are played off against each other.

18.2

The Interest of SSA in the Production of Energy Crops

The recent political interests in promoting biofuels and the resulting increase in the demand for arable land for growing energy crops has fuelled the debate of the consequences of the bioenergy sector development in Africa. In fact, developments in the biofuels sector offer both promises and challenges for developing countries in SSA. In general, the production of biofuels in relatively small quantities is of little environmental or economic benefit. However, from a policy perspective it is of particular interest for national governments to ascertain whether biofuels development beyond subsistence use will yield beneficial outcomes of enhancing rural incomes and poverty alleviation or may rather lead to alienating land for biofuels development at the expense of food crops or hastening environmental degradation, water scarcity and loss in biodiversity due to large-scale production of energy crops for biofuels. Great care must therefore be exercised in land use and farming systems to ensure that the production of energy crops for biofuels do not degrade land, water or natural eco-systems or undermine food production.

18.2.1

Potential of Biofuels in Economic Development

The potential benefits of biofuels will not materialise if there are no markets for biofuel products. In particular, domestic markets are most important for countries intending to indulge in commercial biofuels development since such markets can be internally controlled. In contrast, international markets are disputed areas, predominantly controlled by the highly industrialized and emerging countries. These countries have an influence on the markets by subsidizing large-scale biofuels producers and lifting the international standards for biofuels products beyond the reach of most developing countries due to the current low state of technologies for biofuels production. As a result, developing countries are often not competitive despite having comparatively low production costs. In addition, most industrial countries still highly protect their own agriculture that significantly reduces Africa’s competitiveness potential. An example is the breakdown of the Ministerial Meeting in Cancun

212


in 2003 where Mali, Burkina Faso and other African countries left in protest because their cotton production was not competitive due to massive national subsidy policies (Gilton et al. 2004). In February 2001 the US support to the cotton sector was 2.3 billion US$. The EU’s support (to Greece and Spain) totalled 700 million US$ and China provided 1.2 billion US$. Subsidies encouraged surplus cotton production, which was then sold on the world market at subsidized prices (Aksoy and Beghin 2005). This has depressed world cotton prices, damaging those developing countries which rely on cotton for a substantial component of their foreign exchange earnings. The expansion of cotton cultivation in many developing countries has played an important role in reducing poverty, where the scope for replacing cotton by other crops is limited. These gains have been threatened by the fall in world prices for cotton. The process of energy crop production could face a similar fate. Although the global economy offers great export market opportunities for SSA biofuels, penetration of biofuels products into international markets presents a major challenge. Besides huge subsidies provided to biofuels producers, a number of countries in the developed world have put in place tariff barriers. For example, the USA levies a 54% tariff on ethanol imported from Brazil (Lanely 2006). This calls for countries in SSA to develop a Pan-African biofuels policy to harness the market potential within the SSA region. With the total population estimated at 836 million people, SSA has an enormous consumer potential that ought to be developed. Such a development will require the assessment of existing national demands and capacities to satisfy demand from own resources. Any export production has to be adapted with regard to the national economy in a way that it is in balance with necessary imports. In many instances, goods are imported by African countries although they could be produced locally and from local materials such as oil seeds. Common markets in SSA have been already established, such as Economic Community for West African States (ECOWAS), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) or Communauté Économique et Monétaire de l’Afrique Centrale i.e., Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC). But the challenge remains to “develop” the potential consumers into “consumers with a potential”. In 1999, out of a population of 180 million in the SADC region, only one of ten people had a job in the formal sector and only about 20% of the economically active population had jobs. Official unemployment rates in 2008 were 7.6 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa and 10.1 per cent in North Africa. While the rate of unemployment is relatively low in subSaharan Africa, the proportion of workers in vulnerable employment is about 77 per cent of the labour force (Economic Commission for Africa/African Union 2010). The real value of energy crops for SSA are the manifold with different products that can be produced for regional markets and own consumption. In 2008, the overall demand of fuel for SSA excluding South Africa was estimated at 5.7 million tons and accounted for only 0.2% of the world’s demand. In 2009. the global oil consumption declined by 1.2 million barrels per day (b/d), or 1.7%, the largest decline since 1982 (BP 2009, 2010). Despite low wages in SSA the production costs for biodiesel are substantially higher than for fossil diesel, whereas ethanol could be competitive in some cases.

18


213

For example in Botswana biodiesel would be competitive with a reduction of levies by 75% that currently apply to fossil diesel and 50% for ethanol (Kgathi and Mfundisi 2009). This also applies to South Africa (Nolte 2007) and Europe. However, high production costs of biodiesel are not to be seen as a major constraint, but requires a careful assessment in order to develop a balanced policy. There are opportunities that SSA countries can benefit from the growing international interest in biofuels considering that most African countries have ample land and good climate for growing different energy crops. However, the promotion of biofuels should be weighed against the negative effects of uncontrolled expansion of the biofuels industry. As such, SSA countries may be the producer of the necessary raw materials and other biofuels products. But this has to be done in well calculated proportions, i.e. in relation to its own demand and, in case of excess production for export, in a balanced use of arable land without a disrupting food production. The main emphasis by SSA countries should be on a balanced portfolio of goods from energy crops involving as many industrial sectors as possible. A number of products can help to improve the living conditions in rural areas: edible oil as food supplement, clean burning fuel for kitchen stoves reducing health hazards (especially respiratory diseases amongst women and children), fodder for life stock, fuel for agricultural machinery and generators, fertilizer, building materials etc. Various goods can be industrially produced involving at least six different industrial sectors: food, chemical including fuel, agricultural, building material, pharmaceutical and cosmetics. Biofuels are used in rural areas of Mali and Tanzania to generate electricity (Jumbe et al. 2009). Stimulating the development of these industries would result in a sustainable development of the national economies. This would have a positive impact on the overall social development by generally improving rural living standards, a higher rate of employment, an improvement of health standards, a reduction of crime, drug abuse and other social problems. A diversity of goods from energy crops is also envisaged in view of a change to be expected within the next 30–40 years concerning the position of bioenergy within the energy mix. According to the OECD/EIA (2010), the use of biofuels for transport is projected to rise rapidly from 1 million barrels per day in 2010 to 4.4 million barrels per day in 2035 owing to the rising oil prices and government support. The energy mix will be most probably dominated by solar energy and biomass will mainly form the basis for sustainable chemical production processes (Pfennig 2007). A widespread production portfolio would reduce the risk of destabilized economic developments.

18.2.2

Areas of Concern and Possible Negative Effects

Due to the different interests and priorities of the various players, it is inevitable that there will sometimes be a clash of interests. But also short sighted approaches could have negative side effects in the long run, which should be avoided. As such, the pre-calculation of possible clashes of interest and/or negative side effects are the challenges for a sound policy and its mechanisms.

214


Besides a positive impact on community development and the direct improvement of living conditions in rural areas, the production of energy crops and the processing of goods will provide good business opportunities. Although this is generally to be seen as a positive aspect it may also be accompanied by negative side effects. Since the driving force behind business is profit, it has to be expected that for the sake of profit, other “values” from biofuels development may be ignored or even sacrificed. From a commercial perspective, it is the common principle that the lower the production costs the higher the profit margins. As such, technologically advanced firms have a strategic and comparative advantage as they have the leverage to undercut their competitors by cutting prices in order to gain a greater market share thereby driving high-cost firms out of business. Although some countries in SSA such as South Africa, Mali and Tanzania have been involved in biofuels production, the new entrants should be cautious of the potential risks of fast-tracking biofuels development in their countries. It will therefore be important for each country to analyze the prevailing circumstances thoroughly because of the complexity of the biofuels industry.

18.2.2.1

Neglect of Food Crop Production

From a purely economic reasoning, should the production of energy crops become an interesting business proposition to generate good income for producers, it might be more attractive for producers to grow energy crops at the expense of food crops. With the income from the sale of energy crops, the food needed can be purchased. However, it has to be considered that increasing production of biofuels from food crops may result in a substantial increase in the food price worldwide. The neglect of food crop production will result in dependency on the market for food by food deficit countries. This will then expose consumers to the vagaries of food insecurity. Those who are likely to suffer would be the net food importers particularly the resource poor households including women and the low income earners.

18.2.2.2

Balanced Use of Land

To secure the necessary production of food crops requires a balanced use of available arable land. This applies to the area to be used as well as to the quality of soils. Bearing in mind that investors are business orientated, it is obvious that they will try to get access to land that is of the best quality, to operate at the easiest conditions (topographic structure, infrastructure) and to have a secure water supply (rain fall, irrigation). Optimal conditions will result in minimizing the production costs with optimal harvesting results and, therefore, get maximum profit. If the most suitable land for crop production is used for energy crops, food production on second or third degree land will require higher input costs (land preparation, fertilizer) with lower productivity. As a consequence less food will be produced at a higher price making food in general more expensive.

18


215

Any decision concerning a controlled and balanced use of arable land requires a comprehensive assessment about and cataloguing of the available arable land, its position, soil quality, access, topographic structure, and water availability. It will be less complicated to exercise control over land use on government owned land than over privately owned land. It will be important to find appropriate mechanisms that enable the necessary controls without intruding on the rights of citizens or communities. Besides controlling mechanisms it would be a good starting point to make private land owners understand the necessity of a balanced use of land which would require appropriate campaigns based on well considered policies.

18.2.2.3

Social Component

Labour costs are a major part of the production costs. Most entrepreneurs will try to offer conditions of employment which are advantageous to them, but not necessarily to the employees. These may include low wages and salaries, long working hours, inexpensive working conditions, minimum social security such as sick leave, unemployment insurance, pension fund, medical aid etc. It has to be kept in mind that at the beginning of the industrial revolution, responsible entrepreneurs accepted their social responsibility to look after the welfare of their employees and even built villages for them. Such private social initiatives have in the meantime this did not happen in all industrialised countries. Social protective mechanisms have been promoted during the course of the development of the social market economy in order to prevent exploitation and social injustice. It is the responsibility of national governments in SSA to develop regulatory frameworks (e.g., labour laws) to guard against exploitation of workers by private investors through contract farming arrangements and joint ventures. There are three major stabilizing factors to prevent exploitation and social injustice: • Labour and social legal regulations • Trade unions • High employment rates In most African economies, supportive and protective mechanisms for the work force are generally underdeveloped and on a low level. This results almost automatically from an economy which is predominantly characterized by subsistence-oriented operations rather than by extensive business operations. Subsistence production is characterized by small production quantities due to limited resources (land, capital and labour). The owner of the business and often family members are the core of the work force. It is therefore difficult to have well developed and efficient labour and social protective mechanisms such as laws or trade unions. In addition, the employment situation has no stabilizing effect. In cases of a high employment rate, job seekers are scarce and employers will have to make lucrative offers if they want to find suitable candidates. A high unemployment rate such as in SSA with an oversupply of job seekers tends to make labour a cheap commodity.

216


Ample experience with regard to social justice or at least acceptable conditions of employment during the last century has shown that employees need some kind of protection. Studies have shown that governmental protection often had a paralyzing effect on economic development and growth. With regard to the SSA countries, there is need to carefully assess whether the existing labour and social protective mechanisms are sufficient to protect the labourers. This is particularly important in view of possibly large and in particular international investments to produce millions tons of feedstock for biofuels production. On the other hand, it has to be accepted that an investor from Europe for example could not pay wages applicable in Europe due to local labour laws. Wages and salaries are an integral part of the national economy and reflect its economic power. Because of the difference in the price of goods to be imported by wealthy countries and the comparatively low production costs in a developing country, the likelihood of exploitation of workers presents a challenge if no guiding regulations are established. Although international agreements for the import of bioenergy products are under preparation which, inter alia, will also make reference to the International Labour Organization (ILO) regulations. Nonetheless, the reasons for concern remains. It will not be too difficult to bypass such regulations if they are not firmly anchored in the individual countries by ways of corresponding national regulations. It will be important that the individual SSA countries pass the necessary laws and regulations thus making them judicable at national levels to protect local citizens against exploitation.

18.2.2.4

Nature Protection

In particular large-scale energy crop production may be in conflict with nature protection. This may happen when land, being valuable from a biological point of view as biotope or for biodiversity, could also be used as fertile arable land. If not protected by respective regulations, biologically valuable areas may be cultivated and thereby destroyed. A very well known example is the clearing of jungles in Asia for the growing of oil palms, whereby the positive effects on climate and environment due to the production of CO2 neutral energy is by far outweighed by negative effects. Resulting damages would not only harm nature but also other areas of the national economy and in particular tourism.

18.2.2.5

Possible Conflict of Interest Amongst African Countries

Due to differences in technological advancements, there is a possibility that African countries may play against each other in order to get the best biofuels market opportunities. With regard to energy crops, it may well happen that a large investor approaches a country with tempting investment proposals. However, the expected terms and conditions might not match with the adopted policy of that country. It will therefore have to refer to restrictive conditions which would make the investment

18


217

less lucrative. The investor may try to apply pressure in order to have his conditions accepted with the threat that he would go to a neighbouring country. Such situations are exploitative and need to be avoided. Unfortunately, most SSA countries do not have the capacity to resist such pressure. There are examples in Africa where large pieces of land have been purchased for the growing of energy crops by foreign investors. It is therefore important that, countries with a common interest adopt a common policy. The SSA countries would strengthen their position if they develop and adopt a common policy including the necessary regulations. This might sound optimistic, however it would be worthwhile SSA should see the potential of energy crops as a chance to proceed on the way towards the African Union Common Agricultural policy, like the common market in Europe paved the way towards the EU. The second best would be to have a policy for a group of states, e.g. the SADC. A policy at national level which is very crucial is the third best option.

18.3

Considerations for Developing a Pan-African Biofuels Policy

The foregoing discussion is a basis for developing a comprehensive policy for SSA countries that addresses the following issues: • What type of energy crops or biofuels feedstock is best suited for African needs and at the same time can secure an export market and incomes over time without changing the traditional farming system? • What scale of production of biofuels can best promote and protect the interests of African farmers? Are there opportunities for African farmers to cooperate with large-scale producers to create a win-win situation? • What type of production system is best suited for African farmers without interfering with the rights of farmers to land and water? • Can biofuels programs be designed so that they can simultaneously generate food, fodder, various industrial products and fuel in an environmentally friendly manner? Is intercropping of energy crops with other food crops possible to minimize or avoid the reduction in biodiversity or help in mitigating climate change? The complexity of the issues will require a political framework comparative to a legal framework that can accommodate guidelines and regulations specific to the situation in individual countries. The strategic concept proposed in this chapter needs to be orientated towards all levels, namely, (1) national SSA level, (2) regional SSA level, (3) SSA level, and (4) SSA – European level. 1. National biofuels policy development: It is important that each country conducts the necessary research and analysis to identify opportunities and challenges for the development of a biofuels industry. This is important considering the diversity amongst countries with respect to resource endowment, level of technological

218


advancement and market development. For example, due to differences in land resources, the proportionate use of arable land for food and energy crop production will depend mainly on the total area of arable land available, the soil quality, the size of the population and the annual national food requirements. Each of these factors will differ from country to country. Since the results are essential to formulate the basis for a common policy, it will be advisable to specify the items to be investigated including relevant criteria of each factor to be addressed in a guideline to be used in every country. Thereafter, it will be possible to extrapolate the results and to find the criteria of the common policy. Main areas of concern are a balanced use of arable land for food crops and energy crops, preventing an exploitation of labour, the protection of biotopes and biodiversity and over-concentration of energy crop production at the expense of other crops. Particular areas to be supported are the development of national markets, the involvement of various industries and the integration of energy crops and its potential to directly improve the living conditions especially in the rural areas. On the one side, this will require analyzing the potential of energy crops and biomass as well as the existing and latent demand of goods produced. In particular, the inclusion of the industry on a broad level will be of utmost importance for a sustainable economic development of each country. Likewise, national markets as the backbone of national economic developments will have to be developed. An appropriate policy will have to support the results aimed at developing suitable mechanisms. On the other side, negative effects will have to be anticipated and identified and thereafter appropriate controlling mechanisms designed. 2. A regional biofuels policy development: There is need to establish a task force or commission on regional levels such as SADC, COMESA, etc. with representatives from each country. Such commission may be given the task to collect the results of the research in each country and to draft a policy based on the similarities and differences among countries. To coordinate the research in each country to obtain the information to be given to the regional committee, each country could appoint a commission or it could entrust the central coordination to one ministry. With reference to the guideline mentioned above, it will be necessary to appoint the regional commission at least at the same time as the national ones although it would be even better to first establish the regional commission. It could give already valuable advice to individual countries with regard to the appointment of the national committee or coordinator. 3. Pan-African biofuels policy development: With regard to the common SSA policy as the ultimate goal, it will be important to appoint a SSA commission, possibly subjected to the AU. Members of such a commission should come from the regional commissions. The task of the SSA commission should be to collect the results of the work of the regional commissions and to incorporate the same in a draft of a SSA policy to be submitted to the AU. The Pan-African biofuels policy needs to ensure that international interests do not conflict with the paramount interests and targets of African countries to improve the living conditions of its citizens and to develop their markets for a sustainable economic development.

18


219

It has to prepare itself for controlling the process in order to get the results wanted. For this, it is necessary that the policy includes appropriate mechanisms to implement the policy. 4. SSA-European biofuels policy development: It was mentioned earlier that the energy crop production in SSA has an international or rather transcontinental dimension that concerns – or should concern – in particular Europe. It is, therefore, recommended to establish a joint SSA – European commission to develop guidelines for a win-win biofuels policy. Due to the historic developments, but also due to the geographical position, Europe and SSA have a lot of common experiences and opportunities but also challenges that should form a solid basis for a long-term partnership. From a European perspective, SSA problems are to be seen as European problems. Although SSA should concentrate on the SSA internal significance of energy crops, it also has to consider the international perspective. The EU target to introduce 10% of alternative fuels by 2020 may open up export markets for SSA although the access to arable land in eastern Europe makes such export developments by no means certain. The historical developments and the geographical position of Europe and Africa have established a relationship that would and will serve as a stabile basis for cooperation with regard to biofuels development. A common African-European Biofuels policy has the potential to mutually harness the potential of biofuels to economic development in both Africa and Europe. On one hand, Europe is both a major exporter and the world’s largest importer of food, mainly from developing countries including Africa. This will broaden African access to European market; Again, the European farming sector uses safe, clean, environmentally friendly production and processing methods that could enhance the productivity of African farmers. On the other hand, Africa has ample land, cheap labour and good environment for the growing different types of energy crops for biofuels production. All these point to the need for a common African-European biofuels policy.

References Aksoy MA, Beghin JC (2005) Global agricultural trade and developing countries. The World Bank, Washington DC BP (2009) Statistical review of world energy, Houston BP (2010) Statistical review of world energy. www.bp.com/statisticalreview Economic Commission for Africa/African Union (2010) Economic Report on Africa 2010. Promoting high-level sustainable growth to reduce unemployment in Africa. ECA, Ethiopia Gillson I, Houlton C, Buncombe K, Page S (2004) Understanding the impact of cotton subsidies on developing countries. Working Paper, MPRA Paper No. 15373. Unpublished Jumbe CBL, Msiska F, Madjera M (2009) Biofuels development in Sub-Saharan Africa: are the policies conducive? Energy Policy 37(11):4980–4986 Kgathi DL, Mfundisi K (2009) Potential impacts of the production of liquid biofuels on ecosystems and so sustainability: The case of Botswana. Paper presented at the workshop on Energy, Ecosystems and Livelihoods, 28–29 Apr 2009, Pretoria, South Africa

220


Lanely K (2006) Biofuels: promises and constraints. International Food and Agriculture Trade Policy Council, IPC Discussion Paper, Dec 2006, Washington, DC Nolte M (2007) Commercial biodiesel production in South Africa: a preliminary economic feasibility study. MSc Thesis. University of Stellenbosch, South Africa OECD/EIA (2010) World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, France Pfennig A (2007) Supporting debottle-necking of global human processes by applying appropriate balances. Biotechnol J 2:1485–1496. www.biotechnology-journal.com

Part IV

Sustainability of Biomass Production and Use

Chapter 19

Keynote Introduction: Sustainability Considerations for Biofuels Production in Africa Rocio A. Diaz-Chavez and Jeremy Woods

Abstract Different drivers have been identified for the promotion of bioenergy crops in both developed and developing countries. The interest in bioenergy projects and biofuels has been driven by a combination of factors, but primarily by initiatives on climate change to reduce GHG, to reduce dependency on oil fuels and by the potential for socio-economic development. At the same time this has led to an increasing concern with the wider implications of biofuels production, particularly if grown at large-scale. Such concerns include environmental sustainability, green house gases (GHG), land use changes and impacts on food prices. Verification systems offer a possibility to assure sustainable production, but have not fully addressed the perception of communities and the effects at different scales. This chapter focuses on sustainability considerations in Africa for bioenergy crops, the certification and verification implications and what is seen regionally as good practice. Keywords Sustainability assessment • Biofuels Africa • Renewable energy • Sustainable development • Certification and standards

R.A. Diaz-Chavez (*) Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road 313A Mech Eng Bld South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK e-mail: [email protected]. J. Woods Porter Institute, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road 313A Mech Eng Bld South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK e-mail: [email protected]


223

224

19.1

R.A. Diaz-Chavez and J. Woods

Introduction

Different drivers have been identified for the promotion of bioenergy crops in both developed and developing countries. The interest in bioenergy projects and biofuels has been driven by a combination of factors, but primarily by initiatives on climate change to reduce GHG, to reduce dependency on oil fuels and by the potential for socio-economic development. The growing interest in bioenergy projects and particularly biofuels has led to increasing concern with their wider implications, particularly if grown at large-scale. Such concerns include environmental sustainability, greenhouse gases (GHG), land use changes and impacts on food prices. Particularly in the EU and the USA where targets have been imposed to achieve GHG reductions, the development of the biofuels industry has seen many arguments in favour of the use of biomass (e.g. security of energy supply, diversification of energy sources, low-carbon emission, an alternative market for agricultural products, land rehabilitation, amongst others). Furthermore, it has been considered that importing biofuels from developing countries will not only allow developed nations to diversify their energy mix and meet environmental requirements, but could also create new economic opportunities for rural areas, allowing low-income countries to become vital producers and exporters of a valuable new good. Nevertheless, some possible negative social and environmental implications have also been raised for both developed and developing countries, especially on issues such as land competition, the questionable reduction of emissions, ‘the fuel versus food’ debate and the indirect effects of land use change (Diaz-Chavez and Woods 2008). To counterbalance the possible negative effects some measures are being put in place to ensure their sustainability (e.g. certification, accreditation, and traceability) that will have a major impact, either positive or negative, on the development of the biofuels industry. For this, different standards and criteria have been developed. Main environmental and social criteria have been included in a number of proposals for standards such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB), the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) and some country initiatives such as the meta-standard from the Renewable Fuel Agency of the UK which considers the use of available standard systems (i.e. Forest Stewardship Council, Rainforest Alliance), or the Netherlands Cramer Criteria. Despite the efforts from some organisations (e.g. the Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) and the Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP)) to include the opinion of developing countries, where a major production is expected to provide enough biofuels for the EU to comply with its targets, some aspects of the criteria developed have different relevance in developing countries (such as Brazil and a number of African countries). This is the case for instance for socio-economic criteria and some environmental issues of biofuel production.

19

Keynote Introduction: Sustainability Considerations for Biofuels Production...

19.2

225

Sustainability Assessment in the Biofuels Context

The main objective of a sustainability assessment is to evaluate the sustainability performance of the economic, environmental, social and political processes or products (in this case bioenergy projects or initiatives). For an effective sustainability assessment there must be clear delineated principles and if possible decision criteria based on well integrated understanding of the key requirements for sustainability including international agreements, policies or directives which reflect consensus on the approaches to achieving sustainability. The framework adopted included the “traditional” environmental, social and economic themes and an added one on policy and institutions. The links between the different themes of sustainability also contribute to the better understanding of the sustainability process and assessment (Diaz-Chavez 2006). Considerable amount of work has been focused on sustainability issues, but not on a global scale. A more systematic approach with greater acceptance is necessary. The problem is how to create a global standard that allows for national and global activities, given the complexity of many of the issues involved. Any sustainability standard must include the three key components: economic, social and environmental aspects. In addition, a political and institutional new pillar has to be included since many of the issues implied in sustainability are of political nature (e.g. targets) (Diaz-Chavez 2008). A number of issues need to be considered to ensure both a sustainable production and use of biomass oriented towards energy needs and reducing GHG emissions. Amongst these are environmental and social concerns, which bring into consideration the area of land required from energy crops for producing electricity and biofuels for transport. Additionally, other concerns include the effects that the large-scale cultivation of energy crops and use of residues may have on biodiversity, soils, hydrology and landscape (Diaz-Chavez and Woods 2008). One of the main difficulties in assessing sustainability is the implication of “whose sustainability” is being addressed. This implies a review of the concepts and understanding of different societies and also the main goals for the achievement of sustainable development. Additionally, it must be assessed how sustainable development can be measured or reviewed and which tools shall be used (Sheate 2009). Some environmental tools are more appropriate for particular objectives or activities (e.g. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for policies, plans, and programmes) whilst others are diverse but at the same time limited to specific activities or products (e.g. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)). The case of biofuels has also produced a review of which available environmental management tools can be used in a quite new cross-cutting and sectoral area. One opportunity is to use at good practices to work towards improvement of available tools.

226

19.3


Good Practice Definition

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) defines Good practices as: “Any collection of specific methods that produce results that are in harmony with the values of the proponents of those practices. In agriculture, applies available knowledge to addressing environmental, economic and social sustainability for on-farm production and post-production processes resulting in safe and healthy food and non-food agricultural products” (FAO 2005). According to the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO 2006) the definition of a standard is: “A normative document, developed according to consensus procedures”. The ISO also provides definitions for all activities related to the standardisation process (see Box 19.1). In practice, a certificate is issued when a producer of a product (or process) has answered a set of standardised questions categorised by the principles that make up the standard as follows: • ‘Principles’ which are defined as ‘general tenets of sustainable production’ • ‘Criteria’ ‘Conditions to be met to achieve these tenets’ and which help to define the indicators to be answered. • ‘Indicators’ the individual questions that show how a farm, producer or company could prove that a particular criterion is met. Therefore, it is the indicators that need to provide sufficient detail to ensure that the principles underpinning the standard are being adhered to. However, in complex systems a ‘value judgment’ may be necessary to set the detail, total number and

Box 19.1 Definitions from ISO on Standards (ISO 2006) A ‘Standard’ refers to a set of principles and criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions of characteristics to ensure that materials, products, processes and services meet their purpose. The ‘standard’ will also define indicators and methods that are used to measure compliance with principles and criteria. ‘Certification’ refers to the issuing of written assurance (the certificate) by an independent, external body – a certification body – that has audited an organisation’s management system and verified that it conforms specifically to the standard. ‘Accreditation’ refers to the formal recognition by a specialised body – an accreditation body – that a certification body is competent to carry out certification. ‘Assurance scheme’ generally refers to the overall framework relating to the development of a standard, the accreditation of certification bodies, and the certification of products and services (Woods and Diaz-Chavez 2007).

19


227

complexity of the indicators. Too much detail and the certification procedures become too unwieldy, expensive and difficult to administer. Too little detail and serious doubts will be raised about the ability of the scheme to assure that its products meet the standard (Woods and Diaz-Chavez 2007). This balance between coverage, detail and simplicity can only be met by a transparent decision process that uses a ‘representative’ set of stakeholders encompassing a ‘balance of interests’ to define, the principles, criteria and indicators of the standards. For the case of the (COMPETE 2009) project a review of different standards and schemes was produced (Diaz-Chavez 2010a) and an alternative set of principles and criteria was developed based on the opinion of different stakeholders, considering sustainability assessment in a wider context and available cases of good practice.

19.3.1

Selection of Principles

Different activities were conducted in order to arrive to a selection of principles, amongst them: a benchmarking process of different sustainability schemes, interviews and consultation with different stakeholders including partners in the COMPETE project, high level conferences and meetings with policy makers of different African countries. During the meetings and conferences, different stakeholders ranging from producers (companies and farmers), policy makers, NGOs, academics and consultants have provided their opinion, which were compiled in different documents and reports available at the project website (www.compete-bioafrica.net). Countries that have participated in the different conferences and meetings included: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia. One noticeable point is that some of the principles and criteria widely discussed in the EU and the USA context, do not present the same relevance for developing countries. An example is the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculation, land availability, the debate of indirect land use change (ILUC) and the food versus fuel debate. This last one is considered more in terms of competition of feedstocks and land availability which in several African countries is not meaningful due to large potential availability of land. Social issues may also be valued differently in the North and South. For instance, child labour concerns are not seen in the same context as long as children collaborate (not under exploitation circumstances) with the family tasks in the farms and do not neglect their studies.

19.3.2

Boundaries and Usefulness

The principles were selected within the sustainability framework mentioned above and according to the definitions of principles with the intention to provide a clear and balanced guideline for Good Practices (Diaz-Chavez 2010b). The intention of

228


the principles and criteria was to provide an alternative guideline that could be used by different stakeholders when considering: • to initiate or assess a bioenergy proposal or project • to assess the sustainability of a feasibility report for a bioenergy proposal or project • to review policy guidelines and assist in the decision-making process of a bioenergy proposal or project • to review and/or assess an ongoing bioenergy proposal/project Finally, the principles are not exhaustive and may differ under different frameworks, projects, experts, countries or any other stakeholders’ opinion.

19.4

Selected Principles

This section presents and briefly explains the principles selected in the framework of the COMPETE project. Some of the principles have clear links amongst them, especially regarding the compliance with policies and regulations (Principles 10 and 11). Table 19.1 presents the 12 principles and the topic they are related to (environmental, social, economic, policy and institutions).

Table 19.1 Principles for sustainability assessment for bioenergy initiatives No. Principle En 1. Good agro-ecological and forestry practices (biodiversity, soil) ✓ 2. Not affecting water supply and quality ✓ 3. No land use change that detrimentally affects food security ✓ 4. Community participation (from planning) 5. Women’s participation (from planning) 6. Skills transfer (management, business, agriculture) 7. Community inclusion in business or economic model (contract with investor or NGO) 8. Added value in the community (individual, money, assets, land, co-products) 9. Improvement in services and infrastructure(energy supply, health) reinvestment of revenue within the community 10. Compliance with National and/or guidelines for bioenergy policy in place 11. Compliance with Local programmes, regulations and/or plans in place 12. Respect land rights and avoid displacement Source: Diaz-Chavez (2010b) Note: En Environmental, S Social, Ec Economic, P Policies

S

Ec

P

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

19


19.4.1

229

Environmental Principles

Principle 1: Good agro-ecological and forestry practices (biodiversity, soil) This principle considers that the basic environmental characteristics to grow bioenergy crops will be followed according to the agro-ecological and forestry conditions of each country, region or community. They include: land use type, soil conditions (adequate for the selected bioenergy crop), soil management and protection, no negative effect on biodiversity, good agricultural practices (e.g. use of fertilisers and pesticides), good forestry practices (e.g. conservation and management). Principle 2: Not affecting water supply and quality This principle seeks to consider that especially in areas where water is constrained it will not be used for bioenergy crops or be limited or managed according to the good agricultural practices. It also seeks to avoid the pollution of water that negatively affects its quality (e.g. due to overuse or bad use of fertilisers and pesticides). The principle considers the use of water first for human consumption and for food crops. Principle 3: No land use change that detrimentally affects food security Land use for bioenergy crops should be considered within the national policies and agro-regionalisation along with other policy instruments and guidelines (if available). The change of current agricultural land for bioenergy crops should not affect food security.

19.4.2

Social Principles

Principle 4: Community participation It considers the community participation in the bioenergy project, programme or plan since the early stages of the planning process. Community participation is not only part of a sustainability process but will also contribute to the success of the project and will allow the community to participate in the decision-making process. Additionally, it provides a feeling of “belonging” and “being recognised” by the community. Principle 5: Women’s participation This principle looks for women participation in bioenergy initiatives from the early stages of the planning process. Including women since the beginning will allow to provide direct gender benefits and empower women in activities directly related to them. Principle 6: Skills transfer (management, business, agriculture) Transfer of skills is related to the added value of growing bioenergy crops. This includes different stages of the business cycle and it applies to the different production and scale schemes (e.g. out-growers, small, medium and large-scale). It also includes productive areas (agriculture), transformation (e.g. extraction of oil from seeds), management, and business skills (e.g. revenue and trading).

230

19.4.3


Economic Principles

Principle 7: Community inclusion in business or economic model (Contract with investor or NGO) The inclusion of the community in the business or economic model will prevent the exploitation of its members and will provide the mechanisms to comply with other principles such as Principles 6 and 8. Principle 8: Added value in the community (individual, money, assets, land, co-products) The added value from the bioenergy initiative can be translated not just in terms of an increment in the income of the community and at individual level (e.g. savings or additional income), but also with additional assets (e.g. animals, food production), land (e.g. individual or communal land) and co-products (e.g. income from soap making). Principle 9: Improvement in services and infrastructure (energy supply, health) and/or reinvestment of revenue within the community At community level the possibilities of reinvesting the revenue to improve services and infrastructure (if previously agreed within the community) is considered as main objective. These services can be related to energy supply or better access to health services.

19.4.4

Policy and Institutions Principles

Principle 10: Compliance with national policies and/or guidelines for bioenergy policy in place Where national policies or guidelines regarding bioenergy production exist, these should be followed by all stakeholders involved in the bioenergy initiative such as the proponent, the community, national and international consultants and developers, investors, NGOs amongst others. Working with the national, regional and local authorities is considered to be important especially for developers and investors to look at cross-cutting sectors (e.g. environment, social, industry, agriculture sectors). Principle 11: Compliance with local programmes, regulations and/or plans in place When working with the national, regional and local authorities it is considered important to be aware of all programmes, plans and regulations at local level. Compliance with them will strengthen the bioenergy initiative and avoid conflicts with different stakeholders and regulators. Principle 12: Respect land rights and avoid displacement The debate on land rights in developing countries (mainly in Africa) led to this principle to be considered by communities, governments and investors. Displacement

19


231

needs to be avoided as far as possible or regulated by the decision of (local) authorities after thorough studies with the involvement of all affected stakeholders. Adequate compensation and further studies for relocation need to be included according to international practice (e.g. such as the guidelines from the World Bank 2008).

19.5

Assessing Bioenergy Initiatives

The proposed principles described above were included in a form to assess bioenergy initiatives or projects. The assessments were conducted following a review of basic information given from the initiative or project and field visits. The information for the assessment needs to include as minimum the following points: • Type of initiative (e.g. private, government, community, NGO, other) • Agreements or reviews of the initiative with local, regional and national authorities (e.g. for the compliance with regulations and policies of Principles 10 and 11) • Type of land use for the bioenergy project (agricultural land, forest, grassland, other) • Type of feedstock (e.g. cassava, jatropha, palm oil, sugarcane, other) • Production scheme (community, out-growers, cooperative, private, other) • Scale of the plantation (number of hectares of agricultural land at the farm, community or regional level1) • Contract or agreement type with the farmers or out-growers (e.g. fixed contract, employment, number of years, fixed price or alternative price model) • Final use of the feedstock, co-products and sub-products – – – – –

feedstock to be sold without any treatment, oil or fuel processed on-site, oil or fuel to be used on-site for electricity, oil or fuel to be sold for local, regional, national use, fuel for export

• Community participation in the business scheme since planning (meetings organised, community decisions, women’s included in scheme) • Overall benefits for the community (individual income including new assets such as animals or land, electrification scheme, cooperative benefits) The assessment was conducted with the form following a qualitative score system. Although it is recognised that the assessment will be of a subjective nature, in order to reduce bias it is expected that the assessment will be conducted by a stakeholder or expert with experience on bioenergy projects and independent from the proposed project.

1

Determining the scale of the plantation on small, medium and large will vary according to the farm, community or region where the initiative is proposed and to the type of feedstock. This is the reason why it is considered here as a relation between the number of hectares and the total agricultural area in the community or region.

232


The assessment was based on a qualitative scale for each principle according to the following scores: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The project does not consider this principle (0%) The project covers this principle partially ( U(Firewood) > 0), a consumer will buy an ethanol stove. Discrete Choice Analysis (DCA) combines the multi-attribute utility of microeconomic consumer choice theory with the statistical random utility maximisation model. The random component means that there will be some probability distribution associated with the choice between the two stoves, as depicted in Fig. 30.2. Policy makers and stove developers will be more interested in the macro level outcomes such as the market share and price elasticity of a stove than probability of buying a particular stove. The DCA will answer these questions as the probability of a stove choice is the same as the market share of the stove in probability theory and the slope of the “S” curve is its price elasticity. A Stated Preference (SP) survey technique was used to provide the data for the DCA model. In an SP survey, an analyst asks people to choose alternatives with

380

F.X. Johnson and T. Takama

Fig. 30.3 Example of stated preference survey card used in Ethiopia case study. The choice experiment in the stated preference survey is such that each respondent views the card and chooses between the two options based on the specified attributes. Each choice requires a separate card so that pair wise comparisons between the stove/fuel options are made (Source: Takama et al. 2011)

stated attributes in a hypothetical situation using questionnaires, cards, telephone interviews, web, etc. For example, in Ethiopia, there were options for ethanol, kerosene and firewood stoves, and the respondents are asked to choose between such options. Figure 30.3 shows an example pair wise comparison between a firewood

30

Economics of Modern and Traditional Bioenergy in African Households…

381

Table 30.1 Summary of product specific and socio-economic attributes Product specific attributes Socio-economic attributes Specific to Product Person Characteristics Universal in nature Specific to context Variation in choice Within individuals Between individuals or groups Change in short-term Relatively easy Difficult Useful for Product design, demand forecast, Market segmentation/profiling policy formulation and policy formulation Source: Takama et al. (2011)

stove and a kerosene stove. If the consumer is willing to pay a greater upfront cost (purchase price) or is very concerned about the monthly cost for fuel, he/she might choose the kerosene stove. Otherwise, it is better to choose a firewood stove. It was decided to focus on the product-specific aspects in the choice experiment. As summarised in Table 30.1, the product-specific and socio-economic attributes have different characteristics and roles in the promotion of modern energy efficient cooking stoves. Therefore, an innovative approach and method is required to categorise and study each. Furthermore, the quantification of these attributes is necessary to provide guidance for practical project implementation.

30.5

Application of the Model

In this section, the basic context and application of the model for the three case studies are summarised. A longer discussion is found in the detailed research report (Takama et al. 2011). The basic structure of the model was the same across the three case studies, although the parameters and choices differed slightly (for example, kerosene was not an option in Mozambique). The general structure is given and discussed in the Annex to this chapter.

30.5.1

Ethiopia

Alternatives for the cooking stove choice experiment were evaluated based on four criteria: (1) number of users; (2) distribution across different income groups; (3) usage level; and (4) relevance to the study objectives. In Ethiopia, essentially every household uses charcoal for the traditional ‘coffee ceremony’ and therefore when assessing fuel-switching, charcoal is less appropriate since no one would actually switch away from it. Thus, on the basis of the above criteria and discussion, kerosene and wood were selected as the relevant cooking fuel alternatives along with ethanol. One reason for including ethanol in such an experiment is that it is a relatively new fuel and therefore experimental techniques are useful to understand market behaviour. Some special characterisation was needed for ethanol and kerosene in Ethiopia in terms of risk, because of recent negative experience. In 2005, a local company

382

F.X. Johnson and T. Takama

produced kerosene and ethanol blend as cooking fuel and termed it as K-50. It developed a reputation for being explosively volatile due to a poor blend and low quality stoves. Now, many respondents associate ethanol with explosions and consider it unsafe (Kassa 2009). Both ethanol and kerosene stoves were consequently viewed as risky. The perceptions created by the experience clearly were having strong influence on consumer preferences, thus illustrating some of the intangible factors related to the specific context and circumstances beyond just the attributes themselves and the associated tradeoffs.

30.5.2

Tanzania

In Dar es Salaam, charcoal is by far the most commonly used fuel for cooking, with approximately 75% of population using it as the primary cooking fuel. In a discrete choice model, there will be a heavy bias when one choice is so dominant. Consequently, charcoal was not included as an alternative and furthermore, its exclusion made the case study consistent with the Ethiopian case. Having excluded charcoal, firewood was selected instead. Firewood is becoming a less common cooking fuel in Dar es Salaam and other urban areas, but is still widely used in rural locations. Thus, it was chosen to represent a traditional fuel with many similar properties to charcoal. In addition to firewood, kerosene was selected as an important fuel (second after charcoal in Dar es Salaam), and ethanol, as a modern but renewable fuel. Ranges of prices for stoves and monthly costs were obtained from internet research and confirmed by a field survey in Dar es Salaam. In comparison to the Ethiopian study, stove prices included four levels instead of three, and indoor smoke and safety risks also featured four levels, both uniformly on a 0–3 scale.

30.5.3

Mozambique

The stated preference-based survey was administered in the municipal district of Catembe, an extension to the city of Maputo, with a distinct blend of urban, periurban and rural characteristics. One difference was the choice of alternatives, as charcoal replaced kerosene. A focus group discussion amongst household cooks in Maputo served to confirm the choice of alternatives and levels of attributes chosen (Takama et al. 2011).

30.6

Results

The model was evaluated using the BIOGEME software, which provides parameter estimates and full statistical analysis. The estimates and the P-values for statistical significance are given in Table 30.2. The table shows that two constants and the five parameters are significant at 5% levels in the three cases. A similar analysis was

30

Economics of Modern and Traditional Bioenergy in African Households…

Table 30.2 General parameters derived from the BIOGEME model Ethiopia Tanzania Parameter Description Coeff. P-value Coeff. aE ASC for Ethanol .415 .05 .666 aK/C ASC for Kerosene −.392 .04 – or Charcoal aW ASC for Firewood Fixed – Fixed bcost Usage Cost −.029

Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa

bioenergy from sustainable forestry

GIS for Sustainable Development

Chemistry for Sustainable Development

Innovation for Sustainable Development: Local Case Studies from Africa

Accounting for sustainable development performance

International Investment for Sustainable Development

The Biomass Assessment Handbook, Bioenergy for a Sustainable Environment

Climate Change and Sustainable Urban Development in Africa and Asia

Environmental Management for Sustainable Development

Information systems for sustainable development

The Biomass Assessment Handbook: Bioenergy for a Sustainable Environment

Institutional Change for Sustainable Development

Mathematical Modelling for Sustainable Development

Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development

Carbohydrates in Sustainable Development II

Carbohydrates in Sustainable Development II

Sustainable Development in the USA

Democracy and Development in Africa

Democracy and Development in Africa

Environmental Protection Strategies for Sustainable Development

City planning for health and sustainable development

Human Ecology: Basic Concepts for Sustainable Development

GIS for Sustainable Development (2005)(en)(535s)

Achieving sustainable development

Sustainable Development Handbook

Sustainable Development Research Advances

Handbook of Sustainable Development

Redefining Sustainable Development

Sustainable groundwater development

Sustainable Urban Development: A toolkit for assessment

Bioenergy for Sustainable Development in Africa

bioenergy from sustainable forestry

GIS for Sustainable Development

Chemistry for Sustainable Development

Innovation for Sustainable Development: Local Case Studies from Africa

Accounting for sustainable development performance

International Investment for Sustainable Development

The Biomass Assessment Handbook, Bioenergy for a Sustainable Environment

Climate Change and Sustainable Urban Development in Africa and Asia

Environmental Management for Sustainable Development

Information systems for sustainable development

The Biomass Assessment Handbook: Bioenergy for a Sustainable Environment

Institutional Change for Sustainable Development

Mathematical Modelling for Sustainable Development

Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development

Carbohydrates in Sustainable Development II

Carbohydrates in Sustainable Development II

Sustainable Development in the USA

Democracy and Development in Africa

Democracy and Development in Africa

Environmental Protection Strategies for Sustainable Development

City planning for health and sustainable development

Human Ecology: Basic Concepts for Sustainable Development

GIS for Sustainable Development (2005)(en)(535s)

Achieving sustainable development

Sustainable Development Handbook

Sustainable Development Research Advances

Handbook of Sustainable Development

Redefining Sustainable Development

Sustainable groundwater development

Sustainable Urban Development: A toolkit for assessment

Recommend Documents